PRIVATE  LIBRARY  OF 
Rev.  Erso,  &HDDGII. 


Shelf 


Eftrarntffltr 


rfBftltf     bn 

Church  Perodical  Sl 
Toledo,    Ohio 


• 


AN    INTRODUCTION 


TO   THE    STUDY   OF 


ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY 


WILLIAM  JONES  SEABURY,  D.D. 

RECTOR   OF  THE    CHURCH    OF   THE    ANNUNCIATION   AND    CHARLES    AND     ELIZABETH 

LUDLOW    PROFESSOR     OF   ECCLESIASTICAL    POLITY   AND    LAW   IN   THE 

GENERAL  THEOLOGICAL   SEMINARY,    NEW   YORK. 


NEW  YORK : 
CROTHERS  &  KORTH 

246  FOURTH  AVENUE 
1894 


COPYRIGHT,  1894, 

BY 
CROTHERS    &   KORTH. 


Press  of  J.  J.  Little  &  Co. 
Astor  Place,  New  York 


'•V: 


PREFACE. 

FEW  subjects  are  more  important,  or,  in  view  of  the 
confusing  effect  of  controversies,  more  difficult  to  be  un- 
derstood, than  that  of  the  government  of  the  Church  ; 
not  only  as  such  understanding  affects  our  duty  to  God 
in  the  matter  of  religious  faith,  but  also  as  it  bears  upon 
our  duty  to  our  neighbor,  and  particularly  upon  what  we 
owe  to  the  Civil  Authority. 

The  following  pages  are  the  result  of  an  effort  to  think 
out  to  their  proper  conclusions  certain  fundamental  prin- 
ciples in  this  subject  considered  in  these  relations,  and  to 
apply  the  conclusions  to  existing  facts.  What  success 
may  have  attended  the  effort,  the  reader  will  determine 
according  to  his  own  judgment,  which,  in  many  cases,  will 
doubtless  be  more  just  than  that  of  the  writer.  The 
effort,  however,  with  such  assistance  as  the  writer  has 
been  able  to  derive  from  the  learning  of  others,  has  been 
honestly  made  ;  and  although  neither  in  its  principles  nor 
in  its  applications  does  it  extend  so  far  as  is  desirable, 
yet  the  process  which  it  essays  is  certainly  one  for  which 
there  is  great  need,  especially  in  regard  to  the  American 
system  here  treated.  If  the  book  shall  in  any  degree 
meet  the  need,  or  prove  of  service  in  aiding  others  to 
meet  it,  the  author  will  be  content. 


4  PREFACE. 

The  digesting  of  the  matter  here  presented  into  the 
form  of  propositions  and  remarks,  has  been  found  useful 
in  lectures  to  students  in  this  department ;  and  may,  it 
is  hoped,  prove  a  convenience  to  the  more  general  reader, 
to  whose  candid  consideration  the  work  is  respectfully 
submitted. 

W.  J.  S. 

ANNUNCIATION  RECTORY,  NEW  YORK, 
Feast  of  St.  Bartholomew,  1894. 


ANALYSIS. 

PAGE 

PROPOSITION  I.     Natural  and  Moral  Entity,    ...     23 

Human  government  a  condition  of  moral  being.  Distinc- 
tion between  natural  and  moral  being.  Imposition  of 
moral  being  a  condition  of  society.  Origin  and  variety 
of  moral  entities.  Abstract  from  Puffendorf,  App.  A. 

PROPOSITION  II.     Human  Government  based  on  Divine 

Will, 25 

Natural  capacity  of  man.  Limited  by  will  of  the  Creator. 
Blackstone's  statement.  Divine  will  expressed  or  im- 
plied. Evidence  of  Divine  will. 

PROPOSITION   III.      Three   elementary   Departments   of 

Government,     ........      27 

Of  Divine  imposition.  In  the  family  and  the  Church 
essentially  and  formally.  In  the  State  essentially. 
Original  blending  of  powers  in  the  family.  Evidence 
as  to  form,  nature,  and  limitations  of  government  in  the 
family. 

PROPOSITION  IV.     Relation  of  the  three  Departments,    .      30 

Distinct  spheres.  Insufficiency  of  either  without  the 
others.  Proper  function  of  the  family.  Nature  and 
sanction  of  civil  authority.  Nature  and  sanction  of 
ecclesiastical  authority.  Practical  value  of  the  State  to 
the  Church. 

PROPOSITION  V.     Relation  of  Church  and  State,      .         .     32 

Distinct  communities.  Jurisdiction  concurrent.  Jurisdic- 
tion complementary.  Theory  that  Church  and  State 
are  different  branches  of  one  government.  Involves  a 


ANAL  YSIS. 


theocracy.  Tendencies  of  this  theory.  Traces  of  the 
theory  in  English  and  Puritan  practice.  Judaic  parallel. 
Explanation  of  the  typical  character  of  Jewish  institu- 
tions of  government.  Applied  to  the  Church  and  to  the 
State.  Discrimination  between  the  two  in  the  will  of 
The  Christ.  Underlying  idea  in  the  process  which  pro- 
duced the  Papacy.  Two  universal  sovereigns.  No 
common  arbiter.  Inevitable  tendency.  Result  in  Eng- 
land. Difficulties  in  the  application  of  true  theory. 
Statement  of  principles.  Jurisdictions  in  what  sense 
concurrent.  In  what  sense  complementary.  Different 
kinds  of  law  in  the  State.  Different  kinds  of  law  in  the 
Church.  Different  purpose  and  sanction,  though  com- 
mon basis.  Discrimination  of  obligation.  Doctrine  of 
passive  obedience.  Statement  of  principle.  Professor 
Chase's  note.  Laws  of  the  Church,  how  expressed.  In- 
clusive force  of  the  word  "canon."  Originally  involved 
exercise  of  judicial  as  well  as  legislative  function.  In 
later  form  properly  legislative.  Definition  of  the  term. 

PROPOSITION  VI.     The  Church  co-existent  with  Redemp- 
tion, .........      41 

The  Church  in  its  most  comprehensive  sense.  The  Church 
in  its  relation  to  man  ;  made  necessary  by  the  fall ;  based 
upon  redemption  ;  identical  under  differing  forms.  The 
Church  coeval  with  fallen  humanity.  Existing  under 
various  dispensations  : 

A.  The    patriarchal,    involving    coincidence   of   the 
Church  with  the  family  :  a.  As  first  constituted  in 
the  covenant  with  Adam,  and  continued  in  the  line 
of  Seth  ;  b.  As  preserved  in  the  covenant  with  Noah  ; 
c.   As  reconstituted  in  the  covenant  with  Abraham. 

B.  The  Mosaic,  when  the  Church  family  had  grown 
into  a  nation. 

Characteristic  of  these  two  dispensations  as  compared 
with  the  third  : 

C.  The  Christian,  including  :  a.   Period  of  transition  ; 
b.  Period  of  settlement  and  organization  ;  c.  Period 


ANAL  YSIS. 


beginning    with    Bishops    succeeding   to    office   of 
Apostles,  and  continuing  to  the  end. 

The  Church  indefectible,  as  inferred  from :  A.  Relation  to 
plan  of  redemption.  B.  Prophecy.  C.  Promise  of  our 
Lord.  'D.  Perpetuity  of  the  Apostolic  office.  E.  Ex- 
pressions of  the  Apostles.  F.  Reason  of  its  institution. 

PROPOSITION  VII.     Ecclesia  :  the  Society  whose  mem- 
bers are  called  out, 45 

The  severance  from  the  world.  The  work  of  grace.  The 
heavenly  call  to  eternal  happiness.  The  supernatural 
truth  revealed  in  Christ.  The  means  of  salvation. 

PROPOSITION  VIII.     The  Catholic  Church  distinguished 

from  all  other  Societies 46 

Distinguished  from  pagan  infidels  ;  Jews  ;  heretics  ;  schis- 
matics. General  statement  of  distinction  between  the 
true  Church  and  all  conventicles. 

PROPOSITION  IX.     Essential  properties  and  notes  of  the 

Church, ...      48 

The  faith,  sacraments  and  ministry  of  Christ  absolutely 
proper  to  His  Church,  and  to  no  other  society.  In  what 
respect  the  Church  is  :  I.  One.  Unity  why  imperfect. 
Unity  in  what  sense  consistent  with  division.  The  con- 
nection of  every  lawful  division  with  the  original  society. 
The  Episcopate  as  the  centre  of  unity.  The  present 
abnormal  condition.  The  rule  of  restoration.  Distinc- 
tion between  schismatical  societies  and  their  individual 
members.  The  responsibility  of  the  trust  of  a  lawful 
connection  with  the  Church.  2.  Holy.  3.  Catholic. 
4.  Apostolic. 

PROPOSITION  X.     The  test  of  the  right  to  the  name  of 

Church, 52 

In  what  sense  the  name  properly  applied  to  a  society. 
Several  entrances,  properly  part  of  a  house,  do  not 


8  ANAL  YSIS. 

PAGE 

identify  it  with  a  house  in  the  neighborhood.  Desig- 
nation of  parts  of  the  Church  by  their  location.  Free 
appropriation  of  the  name  by  modern  religious  societies. 
Cause  of  this.  Conviction  which  leads  to  it.  Assump- 
tion from  which  the  conviction  grows.  The  point  in 
question.  Nature  of  evidence  in  regard  to  it.  Treat- 
ment of  the  evidence.  Underlying  idea  that  the  only 
true  Church  is  the  Church  Invisible.  The  form  of  the 
Church  Visible  therefore  a  matter  of  conventionality. 
Resentment  of  the  Church  claim  natural  under  this  per- 
suasion. Persuasion  connected  with  profession  of  higher 
sanctity.  The  antidote  to  the  poison  of  this  persuasion. 
The  misleading  comparison.  Caution  and  explanation. 
Application  to  objectors.  Natural  right  superseded  by 
moral  obligation.  The  claim  to  membership  in  the 
Church  Invisible  no  release  from  obligation  of  member- 
ship in  Visible  Church  of  Christ's  appointment.  Not  a 
question  of  names  or  of  courtesy,  but  of  fact  and  of  law. 
Names  not  in  themselves  notes  of  the  Church,  but  only 
as  they  truly  indicate  possession  of  its  essential  qualities. 
The  question  in  every  case. 

PROPOSITION  XI.    The  visible  Ministry  correlative  to  the 

visible  Church,          .......     60 

Intrusted  with  powers  correspondent  to  those  of  the 
earthly  ministry  of  Christ.  The  ministry  represents  the 
authority  of  Christ.  The  authority  such  only  as  is  de- 
rived from  Him.  General  description  of  powers  of  the 
ministry.  These  characteristic  of  the  ministry  of  Christ. 
The  parallel  between  Christ  and  His  ministry.  Our 
Lord  how  here  regarded.  Distinction  between  His 
personal  and  official  life.  Not  commonly  recognized. 
Consequence  of  misapprehension.  The  Church  in  being 
before  Pentecost.  Both  its  origin  and  the  operation  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  be  referred  back  to  the  life  of  Christ. 
His  Apostles  continue  His  work,  actuated  by  the  same 
power  which  actuated  Him.  Parallel  of  evidence.  Ex- 
tension of  parallel.  Degrees  of  advancement.  Corre- 


ANAL  YSIS.  9 

PAGE 

spondent  powers  and  limitations  in  the  first  stage. 
Preaching  and  baptizing.  Limited  jurisdiction.  What 
baptism  the  Apostles  received.  Change  after  our  Lord's 
resurrection.  Correspondent  effect  on  power  and  mission 
of  both.  Added  powers  of  oversight  and  government. 
In  what  sense  the  Apostles  were  successors  of  our  Lord. 
Resulting  parallel  in  the  powers  of  the  Diaconate  and 
the  Episcopate.  Intermediate  parallel  of  priesthood. 
Our  Lord's  exercise  of  the  priestly  power.  His  com- 
mission to  the  Apostles.  When  our  Lord  Himself 
advanced  to  this  degree.  His  consecration  to  the  priest- 
hood a  process.  His  priestly  act  necessarily  anticipates 
the  completion  of  the  process.  The  same  conclusion  (in 
other  respects  also)  applicable  to  His  exercise,  and  colla- 
tion upon  the  Apostles,  of  authority  fully  pertaining  to 
Him  after  His  Ascension.  The  fulness  of  power  reached 
by  degrees.  Distributed  by  the  Apostles  into  three 
orders.  The  constitution  of  two  orders  subordinate  to 
their  own.  The  distribution  not  so  much  a  strict  parti- 
tion as  a  diffusion.  The  entirety  of  the  threefold  power 
pertaining  only  to  the  Episcopate.  The  distribution  into 
three  distinct  offices  involves  the  distinction  of  order. 
That  only  one  kind  of  power  constitutes  the  power  of 
order,  a  false  conclusion.  The  power  of  the  priesthood 
being  the  only  power  of  order,  Bishops  have  no  power 
of  order  as  such.  Effect  of  this  principle  joined  to  that 
of  indelibility.  Influence  of  this  error  on  Papacy  and 
Presbyterianism.  Roman  doctrine  of  order.  Presby- 
terian inferences.  False  principle  variously  perverted. 
How  corrected.  Scholastic  distinction  between  order 
and  jurisdiction.  Discriminated  from  primitive  distinc- 
tion. Power  of  order  properly  distinguished  from  right 
to  exercise  power.  Power  to  make  Corpus  Christi  verum. 
Lodged  in  the  priesthood  as  power  of  order.  Power  to 
rule  Corpus  Christi  mysticum.  Not  allowed  to  be  power 
of  order.  Lodged  in  the  Pope  as  power  of  jurisdiction. 
Thence  derived  to  the  Bishops.  Thus  made  revocable  : 
though  order  indelible.  Consequent  dependence  of 


10  ANAL  YSIS. 

PAGE 

Bishops.  Made  equal  with  Presbyters  in  all  except  what 
is  derived  from  and  may  be  removed  by  the  Pope.  How 
certain  Protestants  plough  with  the  Pope's  heifer.  Argu- 
ment of  the  schoolmen  establishes  Papal  in  proportion 
as  it  brings  down  Episcopal  authority. 

PROPOSITION  XII.     Forms  of  Ministry  correspondent  to 

several  Dispensations,      ......      80 

I.  Patriarchal :  Power  of  head  of  family.  Ordinary  succes- 
sion in  line  of  eldest  son.  Patriarchal  theory  sketched 
by  Professor  Dwight.  Sir  Henry  Maine's  "  Supernatural 
Presidency."  Dean  Jackson's  origin  of  government. 
Inference  as  to  priestly  functions.  Evidences.  Tradi- 
tion concerning  Shem  and  Melchizedek.  2.  Mosaic  : 
Succession  to  the  ministry  by  inheritance  limited  to  family 
of  Levi.  Succession  of  the  Levitical  priesthood.  Dia- 
gram of  order  of  succession.  Qualification  for  exercise 
of  inherited  right.  Exceptional  cases  not  affecting  polity. 
3.  Christian  :  Ministry  by  succession  ;  not  of  inheritance  ; 
but  by  selection  and  appointment. 

PROPOSITION    XIII.      Permanence   of   Apostolic   Office. 

Divine  guidance  of  its  first  incumbents,  .         .      88 

I.  Permanent  chief  office.  Various  views  of  the  ministry 
result  from  different  conceptions  of  the  Church.  Effect 
of  regarding  the  true  Church  as  invisible.  Or  a  school 
of  philosophy.  Inconsistency  of  words  and  acts  of  Christ 
with  this  idea.  Twofold  purpose  of  Christ.  Evidence 
of  both  intents.  Two  facts  to  be  accepted.  Each  on 
its  own  evidence.  Not  contradictory,  but  complementary. 
Inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  the  visible  Church  is  the 
voluntary  expression  of  an  invisible  abstraction.  Con- 
gregational and  Independent  theories.  Theories  assum- 
ing the  Divine  or  Apostolic  origin  of  the  Church.  The 
Presbyterian  theory.  The  Episcopal  theory.  Necessity 
of  observing  reality  of  distinction  between  spiritual  unity 
and  external  union.  The  sacramental  idea.  The  iden- 


ANALYSIS.  II 


tification  of  the  visible  with  the  invisible  Church  "over- 
throweth  the  nature  "  of  it.  The  mystical  theory.  The 
substitution  of  the  Church  for  Christ.  The  Church  not 
a  force  :  nor  Christ.  The  Church  a  society.  The  cus- 
todian of  the  faith.  The  channel  of  grace.  Of  which 
Christ  is  the  Head.  Government  by  a  successive  minis- 
try. Transmission  to  the  Apostles  of  authority  exercised 
by  Him.  Evidence  of  this  official  authority.  Sufficient 
even  without  St.  John  xx.  21-23.  No  reason  to  exclude 
this.  Consideration  of  modern  notion  respecting  it.  The 
promise  in  perpetuity  involves  the  permanence  of  the 
office.  Bearing  of  the  case  of  St.  Thomas.  2.  First 
incumbents  directed  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Evidence. 
Pentecostal  gifts.  Not  necessarily  limited  to  the  twelve. 
Nor  communicating  official  grace  to  others  than  officers. 
Diversities  of  gifts.  Grace  to  each  for  his  own  vocation. 

PROPOSITION    XIV.      Exercise    of    Official   Powers    by 

Apostles, 103 

Is  evidence  of  their  derivation  from  Christ.  Inconsistent 
with  evolution  out  of  the  consciousness  of  the  Church. 
Or  delegation  by  it.  The  ministry  mediates  between 
Christ  and  the  Church.  Not  the  Church  between  Christ 
and  the  ministry.  Evidence  of  exercise. 

PROPOSITION   XV.      The   transmission   of  Official   Au- 
thority  105 

Distinction  between  ordinary  and  extraordinary  gifts. 
The  special  evidence  of  miracles.  The  standing  evi- 
dence of  the  Church.  The  ordinary  official  authority. 

PROPOSITION  XVI.     The  Extraordinary  subordinate  to 

the  Ordinary, 108 

Recognition  by  apostles  of  authority  not  conferred  through 
them.'  No  office  recognized  as  superior  to  their  own. 
No  powers  exempt  from  their  authority.  Case  of 
St.  Paul  ;  Barnabas  ;  Epaphroditus  ;  other  Apostles  ; 


12  ANALYSIS. 

PAGE 

Prophets,  Pastors,  Presbyters  ;  Evangelists.  Teachers, 
Deacons.  Alternative  indicated  by  this  evidence.  Evi- 
dences of  subordination. 

PROPOSITION  XVII.     Presumption  raised  requires  proof 

in  rebuttal, 1 1 1 

Want  of  proof.  Confirmatory  evidence.  Case  of  the 
angels.  Analogy  of  Jewish  ministry.  Intimations  of 
the  will  of  Christ  ;  appointment  of  two  orders  under 
Him  ;  the  three  degrees  of  advancement.  The  tradi- 
tion of  the  Church. 

PROPOSITION  XVIII.     Episcopal  Authority  subject  to  the 

limitations  of  Apostolic  Authority,  .         .         .         .     113 

Limitations  of  apostolic  authority  :  I.  Involved  in   their 
xv       original  commission.     2.   Imposed  by  original  Apostles 
*    under  Divine  guidance. 

(1)  A.  Obedience  to  the  law  of  God.     B.   Authority 
spiritual  and  not  civil.     C.   Subordination  of  indi- 
vidual to  college.     Three  important  principles. 

(2)  A.  Duty  of   consulting  inferior  orders  and   laity. 
The  council  of  Acts  xv.      Authority,  and    concur- 
rence.      Principles.       B.    Distinction    of    fields   or 
spheres   of    work.      The    common    mission.      The 
actual    practice.      Jackson's    curious    comment   on 
Acts  i.   24.      Limits    territorial.      Limits  personal. 
General    rule  :     case  of   St.    James  ;     case   of   the 
angels.       Principle    deduced    from    this    evidence. 
Question   of    residence.      General    principle   to   be 
noted.     The  test  of  permanence  in  apostolic  insti- 
tutions.    The  proper  value  of  this  test. 

PROPOSITION   XIX.       Distinction    between    Power    and 

Right  involved  in  fact  of  limitations,         .         .         .     123 

The  power  of  order  distinguished  from  the  right  to  exer- 
cise the  power.  Jurisdiction  the  right  to  exercise 
power.  Technical  terms  ;  habitual  and  actual  juris- 


ANALYSIS.  13 


diction  ;  order  and  mission.  Palmer's  illustration. 
Comparative  sense  of  mission  and  jurisdiction.  Bear- 
ing upon  Roman  schism  in  England.  Application  to 
the  same  transplanted  to  the  United  States.  Question 
of  intrusion  considered.  Priority  of  occupation.  The 
question  which  lies  back  of  that  of  priority  of  occupa- 
tion. Sinful  terms  of •  communion.  Aggressive  and 
defensive  policies.  Mission  and  jurisdiction  in  the 
broader  sense.  Follow  upon  valid  ordination.  Lawful 
localization  of  universal  mission.  Bailey,  Hooker, 
Mason.  Three  ways  of  determining.  Historical  view. 
Potter's  summary.  Authority  in  any  case  from  the 
Church.  Need  of  authoritative  act  additional  to  ordina^ 
tion.  English  and  American  provisions.  Jurisdiction 
of  Bishop  between  election  and  confirmation.  Distinc- 
tion between  spiritual  and  coercive  jurisdiction.  Prin- 
ciples affecting  relation  between  Church  and  State. 
The  Church,  how  viewed  in  the  United  States  civil  sys- 
tem. Civil  obligations  of  Church  corporations.  Right 
of  judicial  tribunals  to  determine  as  to  faith  and  order  of 
the  Church.  Considered  as  matter  of  fact.  The  prin- 
ciple in  the  question.  Civil  rights  of  the  clergy.  Re- 
sulting from  implied  contract.  Harrison's  citation  of 
Hugh  Darcy  Evans. 

PROPOSITION   XX.      Vesting   of  certain  Powers  in    the 

body  governed; 143 

Justified  by  principle  of  due  regard  for  inferior  orders  and 
laity.  Powers  of  the  Church  as  a  spiritual  society  and  as 
a  society  of  men.  The  former  a  trust  primarily  in  the 
Episcopate.  The  latter  partake  of  the  nature  of  civil 
authority.  In  respect  to  purpose  and  sanction.  On 
what  principle  recognized  in  the  Church.  The  precedent 
of  Acts  xv.  Limitations  of  authority  involved  in  its 
exercise  by  canon.  Significance  of  the  recognition  of 
imperial  and  royal  power.  The  testimony  of  history. 
Abandonment  in  American  civil  system  of  position 
hitherto  maintained  by  Christian  princes.  Exterior 


14  ANALYSIS. 


character  of  American  civil  authority.  Natural  reversion 
of  interior  authority  of  similar  kind  to  the  laity  of  the 
Church.  Examples.  Principle  of  the  consent  of  the 
governed.  The  essential  idea  of  constitutional  liberty. 
Obligation  of  modern  civilization  to  the  Church.  Cau- 
tions. Every  privilege  carries  its  own  inconvenience 
with  it.  True  theory  not  to  be  worked  without  regard  to 
fact.  Nature  and  extent  of  Episcopal  obligation.  The 
proper  principle  of  improvement. 

PROPOSITION  XXI.     The  Federal  idea,  ....     149 

Undivided  equal  share  of  each  incumbent  in  the  authority 
of  the  Apostolic  office.  Maxim  of  Cyprian.  Common 
expression  of  that  authority  involves  federation  among 
equals.  Entire  authority  of  each  Bishop  in  his  own 
place.  Qualifications  to  be  observed  by  all  presuppose 
general  consent.  What  constitutes  federation.  Power 
of  individual  action  not  excluded  by  preexisting  obliga- 
tion. Voluntary  combination  of  those  who  have  power 
of  independent  action  essentially  federate.  Cyprian's 
expression  of  the  principle.  Importance  of  this  consid- 
eration. Misconception  of  relation  of  individual  to 
college.  The  unity  of  the  Episcopate.  In  what  it 
consists.  The  direct  responsibility  to  Christ.  Lawful 
restraint  upon  individualism.  Principle  of  subordina- 
tion. Reference  to  Scriptural  and  historical  evidence. 
Apparent  intent  of  founder  of  the  system.  The  Church 
constituted  of  many  churches.  The  Ignatian  precept. 
Considerable  period  between  Apostolic  and  Episcopal 
councils.  Diocesan  synods  prior  to  Episcopal.  Their 
constitution  and  authority.  Their  independence  subject 
to  the  common  faith  and  order.  Natural  consciousness 
of  need  of  external  authority.  Freedom  from  embarrass- 
ment of  later  theories.  Provincial  system  yet  undevel- 
oped. Natural  resort  to  mutual  counsel  according  to 
apostolic  precedent.  Expression  of  common  authority 
derived  force  from  common  consent.  Distinctions  be- 


ANALYSIS.  15 

PAGE 

tween  Bishops  attendant  on  development  of  provincial 
system.  Apostolical  Canon  XXXIV.  Incidental  evi- 
dence of  Episcopal  councils  about  the  period  of  these 
canons.  Subordination  of  individual  Bishop  to  the 
Episcopate  so  represented  and  acting  within  the  common 
faith  and  order.  Not  that  of  subject  to  sovereign:  but 
of  one  sovereign  to  federation  of  sovereigns.  Repetition 
of  principle.  Consequence  of  contrary  principle.  Na- 
ture of  proof  required  for  it.  Ground  of  recognition  of 
act  of  imperfect  representation  of  Episcopate.  What  is 
in  fact  true.  Principle  of  acceptance  of  authority  of 
councils.  Bishop  :  Episcopate  : :  Diocese  :  Church.  Quo- 
tation from  Bishop  Beveridge.  Modern  recognition  of 
responsible  share  of  laity  in  administration.  The  im- 
portant question  in  regard  to  it.  Principle  which  rules 
the  whole  relation  of  the  laity  to  this  duty.  Why  the 
single  Bishop  is  the  unit  in  analysis  of  Episcopate.  Why 
the  Diocese  is  the  unit  in  analysis  of  the  Church.  In 
what  sense  and  to  what  extent  a  province  may  be  re- 
garded as  a  unit.  The  Diocese  in  such  case  mediately 
represented.  Manner  or  kind  of  representation  does  not 
affect  the  principle.  Why  the  parish  or  congregation 
not  the  ultimate  unit.  Why  the  province  not  the  ulti- 
mate unit.  The  ultimate  unit  the  Diocese. 

PROPOSITION  XXII.     Distribution  of  Church  Represent- 
ative into  civil  limits,        .....  167 

Constitutional  division  not  inconsistent  with  unity.  Differ- 
ence between  spiritual  unity  and  moral  or  social  union 
instituted  for  its  accomplishment.  Contact  of  the  Church 
as  a  society  with  men  in  other  relations.  No  exclusive 
right  of  existence  in  the  charter  of  the  Church.  Warrant 
of  Divine  institution  shared  by  other  institutions.  Con- 
tact involves  recognition  of  their  right  in  their  own 
sphere.  Contact  with  State  in  particular  political  divis- 
ions. Impossibility  of  individual  assent  to  acts  of  a 
body.  Results  in  representation.  Manner  of  this 
representation  in  the  Church  naturally  conformed  to 


1 6  ANALYSIS, 


that  of  the  State.  Universal  civil  dominion  suggestive 
of  similar  universality  in  ecclesiastical  rule.  In  the 
diversity  of  kingdoms  and  states  the  Church  naturally 
partakes  of  their  various  characteristics.  Civil  alle- 
giance justifies  Church  rulers  in  keeping  their  own 
supremacy.  The  justification  enforced  by  further  con- 
siderations. Intrusion  of  external  authority  into  estab- 
lished jurisdiction  contrary  to  Christ's  commission. 
Universal  adoption  of  civil  limits  of  ecclesiastical  juris- 
diction. The  best  union  to  be  expected  between  visible 
Churches. 
Divisions  of  history  of  Church  Representative  : 

I.  The    primitive    period.     Abstract    from    Kennett. 
Quotation    from    Bingham.     Progressive    develop- 
ment of  synodical  form.     Its  attendant  distinctions 
between  Bishops. 

II.  The  imperial  period.     Unification  and  precision 
of    synodical   system.     Effect    of   imperial   power. 
First   appearance   of   an    Episcopal  representation 
proportionable  to  the  Church  as  a  whole  ;   due  to 
the  civil  authority.     Relation  between  emperors  and 
Church  representative. 

III.  The   monarchical    period.      Emperors :  General 
Councils  :  :  Kings  :  National  Councils.   The  claim  of 
the  Pope  to  call  universal  councils.     On  what  prin- 
ciple denied  and  resisted.     Conflict.     The  prevail- 
ing instinct.     Independence  of  national  Churches. 
Interwrapt   with   that    of    the    individual    Bishop. 
Strongly  maintained  in  England.     Why  the  more  so. 

IV.  The  republican  period.     Beginnings  traceable  in 
England.     Essential  principle  of  republican  govern- 
ment existing  in  its  monarchical  system.     Qualities 
of  Church  representative  akin  to  those  of  the  State. 
Influence  of  the  laity.     Complications  in   English 
Church  system.     Result  from  struggle  to  maintain 
its     nationality.       Synodical     system.       Provincial 
synods  succeeded  by  convocation.     Origin  of  convo- 
cation.    Sketch  of  history  and  constitution.     Ques- 


ANAL  YSIS.  1 7 

PAGE 

tion  of  its  bearing  on  the  American  system.  Limits 
of  parallel.  Notable  differences.  Civil  associations 
of  founders  of  American  ecclesiastical  system. 
Probabilities.  Same  ends  of  constitutional  liberty 
naturally  sought  by  similar  means.  Additional  con- 
siderations : 

1.  Position  of  the  Church  in  this  country.  Original 
.  Episcopal  constitution.     Deprivation  of  benefit 

of  Episcopal  residence.  Dependence  of  mis- 
sionaries on  Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel. 
Property  vested  in  parishes.  Consequent  ten- 
dency. Predisposition  of  Colonial  Church  to, 
some  representative  system.  The  system  in 
fact  acted  on.  Groups  of  clergy  and  laity 
within  certain  territories.  These  territories, 
States  recently  colonies.  Abstract  reasoning 
in  regard  to  both  systems.  The  moral  consid- 
eration. The  legal  consideration.  Reflection 
strengthening  moral  consideration  in  the  case 
of  the  Church.  Tendency  of  this  reasoning. 
Ground  of  objection  to  the  process.  Incidental 
evidence  of  civil  analogy.  The  two  schools. 
Correspondent  in  State  and  Church.  Bearing 
of  these  observations.  Evidence  of  facts  in 
ecclesiastical  system.  The  case  of  Connecticut. 
The  Church  in  the  State  the  unit  of  the  repre- 
sentative system.  Diocesan  character  of  the 
unit. 

2.  Comparison  of  institutions  in  the  Church  rep- 
resentative  with   previous   institutions   of    the 
civil  system.     Series  of  parallels.     The  future 
Bingham.     His  impartial  admission,      a.   Par- 
allel   of    federation.       Independence    of    the 
Churches   in   the   States.      By   what    limited. 
Absence    of     recognized    common    authority. 
Association  voluntary.     Quotation  from  Bishop 
White.      Consideration    of    his    observations. 
Individualism    and     Congregationalism     pre- 


1 8  ANALYSIS. 


PACE 

eluded  by  organization  in  the  union  and  in  the 
several  parts.  The  Connecticut  hypothesis, 
how  far  lawfully  supposable.  Bishop  White's 
probable  feeling  and  intent.  Combination  of 
State  organizations  the  feasible  mode  of  effect- 
ing original  project.  Diocesan  State  idea  in 
the  ore.  The  way  prepared  by  Providence, 
^"isdom  of  influential  men  the  result  of  obser- 
vance of  principles  inherent  in  the  Church  sys- 
tem. The  three  important  and  guiding  prin- 
ciples, of  neighborhood,  civil  allegiance,  and 
dependence  on  Episcopate.  Affinity  of  Epis- 
copal to  civil  jurisdiction.  Attracted  to  the 
State  as  the  unit  of  civil  system  here  ;  in  like 
manner  as  to  chief  city  in  primitive  times. 
Jurisdiction  of  the  English  Episcopate.  The 
Diocese  in  the  State.  Right  of  the  Church  in 
each  State  to  seek  completion  in  the  Episcopate. 
Right  to  associate  first  and  seek  Episcopate  after- 
ward. Both  rights,  in  fact,  exercised.  Dr. 
Seabury's  election  (1783),  consecration  (1784). 
Relation  of  Connecticut  to  the  movement  of 
association.  Significance  of  its  action.  Other 
evidences  of  the  federal  idea.  The  federal  idea 
in  the  civil  system.  Three  facts.  Diverse  mis- 
apprehensions of  republican  principles,  b.  Par- 
allel of  organization.  Organic  law.  Original 
constitution  of  the  Church.  The  Church  in 
every  integral  portion  dependent  upon  this. 
Relations  of  integral  portions  regulated  by  it 
without  other  agreement.  Right  of  association 
in  dependence  upon  it.  Organic  law  of  such 
association  properly  called  its  constitution. 
Position  of  integral  portions  in  the  United 
States.  Right  to  embody  principles  of  associa- 
tion in  written  instrument.  Origin  and  import 
of  the  term  "constitution"  applied  to  it. 
Whether  used  in  the  sense  of  "  constitutions  " 


ANAL  YSIS.  19 

PAGE 

in  ecclesiastical  terminology.  Reason  assigned 
for  regarding  this  instrument  as  of  essentially 
different  character  from  that  of  the  civil  con- 
stitution. Reason  refuted.  Practical  con- 
siderations. Generally  recognized  political 
signification.  Changes  in  process  of  comple- 
tion of  ecclesiastical  system.  Correspond  to 
changes  in  the  civil  process.  Similarity  in  pro- 
visions for  amendment  of  constitution.  Anal- 
ogy in  respect  of  powers  conferred.  Nature 
and  limitations  of  power.  Power  legislative, 
conformable  to  constitution.  Case  of  the  ten 
canons.  Dr.  Vinton's  argument  examined. 
Articles  adopted  as  rule  of  conduct.  Canons 
subsequent.  Constitution  a  law  to  lawgivers. 
c,  d.  Parallels,  of  representation  and  legisla- 
tion. Correspondence  in  scheme  of  repre- 
sentation. The  triple  consent  in  legislation. 
The  trace  of  the  executive  in  the  system. 
Historical  bearings  of  the  question.  Corre- 
spondence in  limitation  of  power  of  numerical 
majority.  Defence  of  the  right  of  the  majority. 
Considerations  as  to  limitations  in  the  exercise 
of  the  right.  Value  and  use  of  the  concurrent 
majority.  Illustration.  Recognition  in  civil 
system.  Illustration  of  endeavor  to  balance 
majorities.  Illustration  in  civil  legislation. 
Kent's  statement  as  to  senators.  Instruction. 
Correspondence  in  ecclesiastical  system.  Firm 
grasp  of  the  principle  of  the  concurrent  ma- 
jority. Dangers  to  be  guarded  against. 
Effectual  means  provided.  Admirable  states- 
manship of  Bishop  White.  e.  Parallel  of 
the  judiciary.  System  not  fully  formulated  in 
either.  Pointed  omission  to  devolve  judicial 
powers  on  general  convention  or  conventions  . 
in  States.  Adherence  to  the  principle  in  sub- 
sequent history,  f.  Parallel  of  development : 


ANAL  YSIS. 

PAGE 

(1)  Correspondence  in  regard  to  original  extent 
of  jurisdiction.     Comparison  of  constitutional 
provisions.     Statements  of  Professor  von  Hoist. 
His  position.     The  intent  to  extend  jurisdiction. 

(2)  Correspondence  in  general  policy  of  exten- 
sion :     (a)  in  regard  to  newly  admitted  mem- 
bers ;  (6)  in  regard  to  exercise  of  jurisdiction 
over  dependencies.     Consideration  of  these  de- 
pendencies :    (a)  Statement  in  regard  to  status 
of  new  members.     Agreement  of  two  schools 
in  each  system.     Diocese  substituted  for  State 
in     ecclesiastical     constitution.       Amendment 
resulting  from  what.      Double  recognition  in- 
volved,    (b)  United  States  more  than  a  feder- 
ation.    Federal  union  the  basis  of  the  system. 
System    produces     the     political    community. 
Community    represented    by  common   govern- 
ment.     Has   certain    common    interests.      Of 
which  common    government    is   administrator. 
Principle  applied   to   territory.     Political  care 
of  residents.     Appointment  of  rulers  by  com- 
mon government.     No  representation  as  con- 
stituent   part    of    the    union.        Ecclesiastical 
system.     Based  on  federation.     Involves  more 
than  federation.     Obligation  to  associate.    Care 
for   members   in    outlying   districts.      Diocese 
conterminous  with  State.     Ecclesiastical  union 
conterminous   with     civil   union.       Efforts   to 
reach  out  beyond  limits  of  States  composing 
union.     Resolutions  of  1792  and  1808.     Mis- 
sionary system.     Canonically  developed.     Ap- 
pointment of  Bishops  by  common  government. 
Delegation  without  representation.     Difference 
in  one  particular  of  development.     Nature  of 
Episcopal  representation.     The  Episcopal  rep- 
resentation  of  dependencies.     Different  kinds 
of  dependencies.     Rights  of  Bishops  in  respect 
to  them  derived  from  canon.     Range  of  these 


ANALYSIS.  21 

PAGE 

rights.  General  feeling  finding  expression  in 
canonical  provisions.  Intimation  of  unconsti- 
tutionally. Accretion  upon  ecclesiastical 
system.  Rights  traceable  to  what  principle. 
Principle  how  far  properly  applicable.  Lim- 
itation of  rights  under  ecclesiastical  constitu- 
tion. Double  bearing  of  canonical  extension 
of  Episcopal  rights  in  the  system.  Question 
of  representation  distinguished  from  that  of 
quorum.  Bishop  White's  view  considered. 
Practical  value  of  the  civil  analogy. 

PROPOSITION  XXIII.  The  unity  of  authority  over  indi- 
vidual members  of  component  parts  and  depend- 
encies,   256 

The  analogy  and  foundation  of  the  Federal  system.  Three 
principles  to  be  considered  :  I.  Dioceses  the  component 
parts.  Elder  and  later  terminology.  Quotation  from 
Bishop  White.  Application.  Equivalence  of  Diocese 
and  Church  in  the  State.  Citations  from  the  Constitu- 
tion. Application.  Power  of  alteration  where  resid- 
ing. Where  it  does  not  reside,  and  why.  Whether  the 
Bishops  are  part  of  the  Church  in  the  Diocese.  Why  the 
fact  was  not  more  plainly  recognized  in  the  Constitution. 
Distinction  between  dioceses  and  missionary  jurisdic- 
tions. Representation  of  the  latter  an  anomaly.  2.  Dis- 
tinct existence  of  the  Church  as  associated.  Qualities  of 
this  form  of  being.  Its  name  and  relations.  The  con- 
stitution the  organic  law  of  what.  Binding  upon  what. 
3.  The  direct  and  immediate  authority.  Results  from 
what.  Exercised  under  what  limitation.  Range  of 
this  authority.  Comparison  with  Diocesan  authority. 
The  double  check.  Practical  sufficiency  of  the  system. 
What  it  needs  for  its  improvement.  Its  special  mission. 
The  thought  that  chiefly  aids  the  understanding  of  the 
system.  The  value  of  its  especial  characteristic. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY 


PROPOSITION   I. 

Human  government  is  a  condition  of  moral  being,  imposed 
upon  man  as  a  natural  being  for  the  regulation  of  his  will 
in  society. 

THE  natural  powers  of  man,  those  which  he  has  in 
himself  as  an  individual,  must  needs  be  modified  in  their 
use  by  the  action  of  other  individuals.  Although  de- 
signed by  his  Creator  for  society,  man  was  created  single, 
and  afterwards  brought  into  companionship.  "  Some 
time  must  have  elapsed  before  the  creation  of  the 
woman,  during  which  the  several  kinds  of  inferior 
creatures  were  brought  before  the  man,  and  received 
names  from  him.  .  .  .  Society  began  in  Paradise 
by  the  sacred  and  mysterious  institution  of  marriage, 
designed  even  then  as  a  type  of  the  ineffable  union  of 
Christ  and  his  Church."*  This  beginning  of  society 
worked  a  change  in  the  conditions  of  man's  life,  and 
thus  there  was  imposed  upon  him,  in  addition  to  that 
which  was  simply  natural,  another  form  or  mode  of 
being  which  may  be  called  moral.  Actually,  at  least 
from  this  time,  man  has  lived  in  a  social  state  ;  but, 


*  "  The   Church   of    the    Redeemed,"  by  Rev.    Samuel   Farmar 
Jarvis,  D.D.,  p.  11. 


24  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

abstractly,  we  may  distinguish  between  his  natural  be- 
ing, according  to  the  divine  creation,  and  his  moral  being, 
according  to  the  divine  imposition. 

For  the  better  understanding  of  this  distinction,  and 
for  a  useful  and  suggestive  analysis  of  society,  the 
student  is  referred  to  Puffendorf s  essay  on  the  origin 
and  variety  of  Moral  Entities,  being  the  introductory 
chapter  to  his  "  Law  of  Nature  and  of  Nations,"  a  par- 
tial abstract  of  which,  arranged  with  a  view  to  tabulation, 
will  be  found  in  the  Appendix. 


THE  DIVINE    WILL.  2$ 


PROPOSITION   II. 

The  will  of  God  is  the  foundation  of  all  authority  in  human 
government. 

MAN,  as  by  nature  an  intelligent  being,  is  capable  of 
imposing  conditions  of  moral  being  upon  himself ;  but, 
as  a  created  being,  he  is  limited  in  this  respect  by  the 
will  of  his  Creator.* 

Such  forms  of  government  and  rules  of  action  as  man 
imposes  upon  himself,  derive  their  authority  from  the 
express  or  implied  will  of  God.  They  are  either  based 
upon  the  Divine  commandment,  or  result  from  the  free- 
dom in  which  man  may  have  been  left  by  the  Divine 
permission,  or  absence  of  commandment.  Otherwise, 
i.e.,  where  they  are  contrary  to  the  Divine  will,  they  have 
no  authority  of  moral  obligation. 

It  is,  of  course,  not  necessary  that  the  Divine  will 
should  be  expressed  for  the  sanction  of  all  institutions  of 
human  government,  but  only  that  those  which  men  choose 
to  establish  should  not  be  contrary  in  form  or  prmciple  to 
those  as  to  which  the  Divine  will  has  been  expressed  and 
is  ascertainable.  And  the  evidence  of  that  Divine  will 
by  which  the  authority  of  human  institutions  of  govern- 
ment must  be  tested,  is  to  be  sought  not  in  the  inward 
conviction  of  the  individual  man,  nor  yet  solely  in  the 
judgment  of  individuals  collectively  in  a  community  ;  but, 
ultimately,  in  Holy  Scripture  as  interpreted  by  the  tradi- 
tional testimony  of  the  Church, f  and  in  the  general  con- 


*  "  Man,  considered  as  a  creature,  must  necessarily  be  subject  to 
the  laws  of  his  creator,  for  he  is  entipely  a  dependent  being." — 
BLACKSTONE'S  Commentaries,  i.  39.  f  2  St.  Pet.  i.  20. 


26  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

sent  of  mankind,  which  is  the  accepted  evidence  among 
civilized  nations  of  the  law  of  nature— a  law  which  is  not 
contrary,  but  agreeable,  to  Holy  Scripture  so  interpreted.* 

*  "  We  must  further  observe  that  this  natural  law  does  not  only 
respect  such  things  as  depend  not  upon  human  will,  but  also  many 
things  which  have  been  allowed  by  the  general  consent  of  mankind. 
Thus  dominion,  as  now  in  use,  was  introduced  by  man's  consent, 
and  being  once  admitted,  this  law  of  nature  informs  us  that  it  is  a 
wicked  thing  to  take  away  from  any  man  against  his  will  what  is 
properly  his  own." — GROTIUS  :  Of  War  and  Peace,  Book  I.  ch.  i.  4. 

What  later  writers  regard  as  the  law  of  nature  was  by  the  civil 
law  regarded  as  the  law  of  nations  ;  and  use  was  regarded  as  evi- 
dence of  it. 

"  The  law  of  nature  is  not  a  law  to  man  only,  but  likewise  to  all 
other  animals.  .  .  .  That  law,  which  a  people  enacts  for  the 
government  of  itself,  is  called  the  civil  law  of  that  people.  But  that 
law,  which  natural  reason  appoints  for  all  mankind,  is  called  the  law 
of  nations,  because  all  nations  make  use  of  it." — Inst.  JUST.,  Lib.  I. 
Tit.  ii.,  Harris,  pp.  6,  7. 

Accordingly  Grotius  says  :  "  The  proofs  on  which  the  law  of 
nations  is  founded  are  the  same  with  those  of  the  unwritten  civil 
law,  viz.,  continued  use,  and  the  testimony  of  men  skilled  in  the 
law." — War  and  Peace,  B.  I.  ch.  i.  xiv. 

It  is  true  that  Puffendorf  rejects  this  principle  on  the  ground  of 
inconvenience,  and  Cumberland  (''Laws  of  Nature,"  Intr.)  with 
the  desire  of  deriving  the  law  of  nature  from  its  proper  cause  or 
foundation.  It  cannot,  of  course,  be  held  that  the  law  of  nature  is 
founded  in  consent,  but  only  that  consent  is  evidence  of  it,  and  this 
evidence  must  necessarily  be  applicable  only  to  the  more  elementary 
and  general  principles  of  human  action.  If,  as  Blackstone  observes, 
the  nature  of  man  had  continued  as  originally  created,  reason  would 
have  been  a  sufficient  guide  ;  and  the  practice  of  men  would  then 
have  furnished  adequate  evidence.  Hence  the  need  and  the  benefit 
of  the  Divine  Revelation  in  Holy  Scripture. 

"  The  doctrines  thus  delivered  we  call  revealed  or  Divine  law, 
and  they  are  to  be  found  only  in  the  holy  scriptures.  These  precepts, 
when  revealed,  are  found  upon  comparison  to  be  really  a  part  of  the 
original  law  of  nature." — BLACKSTONE'S  Commentaries,  i.  42. 


ELEMENTARY  DEPARTMENTS.  2<J 


PROPOSITION   III. 

In  three  departments  human  government  is  of  Divine  imposi- 
tion :  the  Family,  the  Church,  and  the  State ;  in  the  first 
two,  essentially  and  formally  ;  in  the  last,  essentially. 

IN  the  nature  of  the  obedience  required,  and  of  the 
sanctions  upon  which  it  is  required,  these  departments 
are  essentially  distinct,  but  in  form  they  have  not  always 
been  distinct.  The  powers  belonging  to  both  Church 
and  State  were  originally  blended  with  those  belonging 
to  the  Family. 

In  the  Family  the  government  is  placed  by  Divine  law 
in  the  husband  and  father.  "  Thy  desire  shall  be  to 
thy  husband,  and  he  shall  rule  over  thee  "  (Gen.  iii.  16). 
"  Honor  thy  father  and  thy  mother  "  (Ex.  xx.  12).  "  If  a 
woman  vow  .  .  .  unto  the  Lord  .  .  .  being  in 
her  father's  house  in  her  youth  ;  and  her  father  hear  her 
.  .  .  and  hold  his  peace  .  .  .  then  all  her  vows 
shall  stand  .  .  .  but  if  her  father  disallow  her  .  . 
not  any  of  her  vows  .  .  .  shall  stand  :  and  the  Lord 
shall  forgive  her,  because  her  father  disallowed  her.  And 
if  she  had  ...  an  husband,  when  she  vowed,"  the 
same  rule  applied  as  to  him  (Num.  xxx.  3-9).  In  St.  Mat- 
thew xix.  4-6,  and  St.  Mark  vii.  9-13,  our  Lord  republishes 
the  original  law  involving  the  unity  of  marriage  and  the 
subordination  of  the  woman  to  the  man,  and  of  children 
to  parents.  St.  Paul  teaches  children  to  obey  their 
parents,  on  the  ground  of  the  obligation  of  the  fifth  com- 
mandment (Eph.  vi.  2)  ;  and  enjoins  upon  the  wife  "that 
she  reverence  her  husband  "  (Eph.  v.  33).  This  govern- 
ment, however,  is  not  absolute,  but  limited  by  correlative 


28  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

duties  of  the  ruler.  The  duty — not  the  sentiment,  but  the 
duty — of  love  to  the  wife  is  enjoined  upon  the  husband 
under  the  sanction  of  the  love  of  Christ  for  the  Church 
(Eph.  v.  25)  ;  and  forbearance  is  urged  upon  parents  even 
as  obedience  upon  children.  "  Fathers,  provoke  not  your 
children  to  wrath  "  (Eph.  vi.  4).  So  in  the  relation  of 
master  and  servant — always  in  the  Scriptural  aspect  a 
part  of  the  family  relation — the  power  recognized  in  the 
master  and  the  duty  enjoined  upon  the  servant  do  not 
exclude  the  duty  of  the  master  and  the  right  of  the  serv- 
ant. "  Servants,  be  obedient  to  them  that  are  your  masters 
.  .  .  with  good  will  .  .  .  as  to  the  Lord  .  .  . 
and,  ye  masters,  do  the  same  things  unto  them,  forbearing 
threatening  :  knowing  that  your  Master  also  is  in  heaven  " 
(Eph.  vi.  5-9). 

In  the  State  the  form  of  government  is  not  settled  by 
the  Divine  will.  The  principle  of  subordination  to  the 
civil  authority  is  settled,  but  not  the  form  in  which  that 
authority  is  to  be  exercised.  The  acquirement  and  the 
tenure  of  power  to  rule  over  men  is  attributed  to  the  gift 
and  will  of  God,  as  in  Dan.  ii.  21,  v.  18-22  ;  the  exercise 
of  the  power  to  tax  is  recognized,  as  in  St.  Matt.  xvii. 
27,  xxii.  21.  St.  Paul  states  the  doctrine  in  comprehen- 
sive terms  (Rom.  xiii.  1-6)  :  "  Let  every  soul  be  subject 
to  the  higher  powers  .  .  .  the  powers  that  be  are 
ordained  of  God,"  etc.,  and  urges  on  Timothy  the  duty 
of  prayer  for  all  that  are  in  authority  (i  Tim.  ii.  1-3) ; 
and  St.  Peter  states  the  same  doctrine  (i  Pet.  ii.  13-17). 

"Of  what  kind  soever  the  government  be,  or  upon 
what  condition  soever  the  magistrates  be  chosen  or 
admitted,  or  howsoever  their  power  be  limited,  the  power 
or  magistracy  is  from  God,  is  the  ordinance  of  God,  and 
may  not  be  resisted.  That  this  nation  should  be  governed 


ELEMENTARY  DEPARTMENTS.  29 

by  a  king,  another  by  peers  or  nobles,  another  by  the 
people,  or  by  magistrates  of  the  people's  choosing  either 
annual  or  for  term  of  life,  this  is  not  determined  jure 
divino,  by  any  express  or  positive  law  of  God,  but  is 
reserved  unto  the  guidance  of  his  ordinary  providence, 
who  sometimes  directs  one  people  or  nation  to  make 
choice  of  this  form,  another  to  make  choice  of  that."  * 

In  the  Church  the  Divine  will  has  not  only  lodged  a 
power  of  government,  but  has  also  made  provision  for 
the  form  in  which  that  power  is  to  be  exercised. 


*  Thomas  Jackson,  D.D.,  a  learned  divine  of  the  seventeenth 
century,  sometime  President  of  Corpus  Christi  College,  Oxford,  and 
Dean  of  Peterborough.  "Treatise  of  Christian  Obedience."  chap, 
vii.  §  6.  Works,  vol.  xii.  p.  312.  Oxford  edition,  1844. 


30  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY, 


PROPOSITION   IV. 

The  three  departments  of  human  government  supplement  one 
another  in  the  regulation  of  the  human  will  in  society. 
Each  one  has  its  own  sphere :  neither  is  sufficient  with- 
out the  others. 

THE  family  is  the  school  in  which  human  beings  are 
to  be  trained  from  youth  for  the  discharge  of  duties  in 
Church  and  State.  The  Church  and  the  State  have 
separate  fields  of  work,  in  which  the  Church  may  be  said 
to  begin  where  the  State  ceases  to  act  in  the  moral 
development  of  the  individual. 

The  State  teaches  men  the  duty  of  outward  obedience 
to  such  commands  as  are  necessary  for  the  order  and 
prosperity  of  the  community,  and  enforces  its  commands 
by  fear  of  direct  punishment  involving  life,  liberty,  and 
property. 

The  Church  teaches  men  such  obedience,  but  on 
higher  principles  ;  leading  men  to  obey  for  conscience' 
sake  those  commands  of  the  State  which  are  in  accord- 
ance with  the  will  of  God,  and  requiring  also  other 
duties,  of  worship,  faith,  repentance,  and  charity.  The 
Church  requires  all  the  good  which  the  State  requires, 
and  more  also  ;  but  enforces  its  requirements  only  by 
spiritual  sanctions,  with  a  view  to  fit  men  for  the  future 
life. 

Practically  the  State  holds  the  position  of  keeping  in 
a  certain  degree  of  obedience  to  the  moral  law  those 
whom  the  influence  of  the  Church  never  reaches  or  never 


RELATION  OF  DEPARTMENTS.  31 

affects.  This  kind  of  forcible  government  is  necessary 
to  enable  the  Church  to  work  in  peace.  But  the  Church 
teaches  the  faithful  not  to  need  compulsion,  but  to 
obey  for  conscience'  sake.  (Rom.  xiii.  1-4  ;  i  Tim.  ii. 

1,2.) 


32  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 


PROPOSITION   V. 

The  Church  and  the  State  are  distinct  communities,  the 
governments  having  jurisdiction  partly  concurrent  and 
partly  complementary :  concurrent  in  so  far  as  they 
extend  over  the  same  territory  and  relate  to  the  same 
persons  ;  complementary  in  respect  to  their  administra- 
tion of  law. 

i.  THE  theory  that  there  is  in  every  nation  a  commu- 
nity of  individuals  whose  temporal  interests  are  provided 
for  by  one  department,  while  their  spiritual  interests  are 
provided  for  by  another  department  of  the  same  govern- 
ment, is  only  sound  on  the  supposition  that  the  gov- 
ernment is  a  Theocracy.  In  the  instance  of  Theocratic 
government  presented  by  the  Old  Testament,  we  find 
this  theory  developed  in  practice.  The  Jewish  people 
were  one  community,  ruled  by  one  government  with 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  departments.  But  these  depart- 
ments were  kept  within  their  respective  limits  by  the 
power  of  the  Divine  Sovereign.  Wherever  this  experi- 
ment is  tried  without  the  existence  of  such  an  acknowl- 
edged Sovereign  power,  the  inevitable  tendency  is  to 
elevate  one  above  the  other,  and,  in  the  long  run,  either 
the  civil  will  control  the  ecclesiastical  by  virtue  of  its 
coercive  power,  or  the  ecclesiastical  will  take  possession 
of  the  coercive  powers  of  civil  government,  and  so  the 
Church  will  swallow  up  or  emasculate  the  State.  In 
the  one  case,  Erastian  views  will  prevail ;  in  the  other, 
the  views  that  have  become  identified  with  the  Papacy. 

The  traces  of  the  working  of  this  theory  are  not  quite 
undiscernable  in  the  English  system  :  and  sometimes  the 


CHURCH  AND    STATE.  33 

parallel  has  been  run  in  this  respect  between  England  and 
Judaea.  Certainly,  if  the  practical  result  of  the  connec- 
tion between  Church  and  State  in  England  has  not  been 
to  weaken  the  Church  and  subordinate  it  to  the  power 
of  the  State,  the  tendency  in  that  direction  has  given 
continual  ground  of  watchfulness  and  apprehension. 
And  among  the  Puritans  in  New  England,  where  the 
Mosaic  or  Theocratic  idea  prevailed,  the  strong  propen- 
sity was  to  give  the  civil  rulers  power  over  the  ecclesias- 
tical in  ecclesiastical  matters  ;  or,  rather,  it  led  to  an 
arbitrary  government  by  the  same  men  in  matters  both 
spiritual  and  temporal. 

All  arguments  drawn  from  the  precedent  furnished  by 
the  Jewish  Dispensation  are  controlled  by  the  fact  that 
Christ  established  the  Church  in  the  Christian  Dispensa- 
tion as  His  Kingdom  in,  and  not  of,  the  world,  alto- 
gether free  from  the  domination  of  the  State  in  regard 
to  matters  within  its  own  sphere,  and  entirely  relieved 
from  the  care  of  such  matters  as  exclusively  belonged  to 
the  State. 

The  typical  nature  of  the  Jewish  institutions  is,  in 
this  particular,  sometimes  misunderstood.  The  Jewish 
Church  was  a  type  not  of  the  Church  of  England,  nor 
of  the  Church  of  any  single  nation,  but  of  the  Church 
Catholic.  And  so  the  Jewish  State  might  be  regarded 
as  typical  of  the  civil  power  under  the  Christian  Dispen- 
sation, although  not  of  the  power  of  any  single  nation, 
but  of  the  civil  power  throughout  the  world.  As  the 
civil  laws  of  the  Jews  were  subordinate  and  conformed 
to  the  will  of  God,  so  should  civil  laws  in  general  be  con- 
formed to  the  Divine  will.  Now,  if  the  type  is  to  be 
applied  to  the  Christian  Dispensation,  it  must  indicate 
the  relation  of  mankind  to  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical 
3 


34  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

powers,  In  the  abstract,  men  are  amenable  to  these  two 
kinds  of  power  as  different  departments  of  the  common 
government  of  the  universal  Sovereign. 

If  Christ  had  reestablished  the  civil  power  among 
men  as  He  did  the  ecclesiastical  power,  and  had  settled 
the  form  of  government  in  one  as  He  did  in  the  other, 
we  may  suppose  that  He  would  have  settled  it  in  such 
a  way  as  to  bring  the  earth  under  the  control  of  one 
government  combining  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  power. 
Then  Church  and  State  would  have  had  a  scarcely  dis- 
tinguishable joint  existence  and  dominion. 

This  was  the  underlying  idea  in  the  process  which 
produced  the  Papacy — a  universal  sovereign  in  the 
State,  and  another  universal  sovereign  in  the  Church — 
the  Emperor  and  the  Pope  together  speaking  and  acting 
the  will  of  God  in  the  government  of  man  :  a  grand 
conception,  but  baseless  so  far  as  the  word  of  God  is 
concerned,  and  therefore  a  failure.*  The  system  was 
not  in  fact  a  Theocracy  ;  for  God  does  not  govern  man- 
kind under  the  Christian  as  under  the  Jewish  Dispensa- 
tion. There  was  no  common  arbiter  between  the  two 
universal  sovereigns,  except  God  in  providence  and 
God  in  eternal  judgment.  Hence  the  inevitable  rivalry 
between  the  two  :  the  triumph  of  the  spiritual  by  the  use 
of  the  power  of  the  temporal  ;  the  ultimate  resumption 
by  the  civil  authority  of  powers  which  rightly  belonged 
to  it,  and  the  natural  usurpation  of  other  powers  which 
did  not  belong  to  it.  And  in  England,  although  the 
Reformation  left  untouched  the  identity  and  historic 
continuity  of  the  Church,  yet  the  idea  of  the  conjoint 

*  The  student  should  read  "The  Holy  Roman  Empire,"  by 
James  Bryce,  D.C.L.,  Professor  of  Civil  Law  in  the  University  of 
Oxford. 


CHURCH  AND   STATE.  35 

existence  of  Church  and  State  as  one  community  was 
not  wholly  outgrown.  Hence,  among  some,  the  anxiety 
to  find  in  the  temporal  sovereign  the  power  which  is  to 
control  the  two  departments  ;  and  hence,  among  others 
who  maintain  the  independent  power  of  the  Church  in 
respect  to  matters  properly  spiritual,  the  need  of  watch- 
fulness of  the  tendency  toward  the  subordination  of  the 
ecclesiastical  to  the  civil  authority. 

Opposed  to  such  a  conception,  and  free  from  many 
difficulties  which  it  engenders,  is  the  theory  that  the 
State  and  the  Church  are  distinct  communities,  possessing 
distinct  governments,  which  administer  distinct  powers 
of  government,  each  government  having  jurisdiction  over 
the  members  of  its  own  community  in  respect  to  such 
matters  as  pertain  to  it. 

There  must  be  difficulties  in  the  practical  application 
of  any  theory.  It  is  impossible,  for  example,  not  to 
encounter  difficulties  in  the  determination  between  the 
two  powers  of  the  question  as  to  what  are  the  matters 
which  do  pertain  to  each.  But,  apart  from  what  may  be 
urged  in  support  of  this  theory  in  point  of  principle,  it 
seems  obvious  that  the  difficulties  are  fewer  when  it  is 
recognized  that  Church  and  State  are  distinct  communi- 
ties, the  authority  of  each  having  been  sanctioned  by 
Christ ;  that  He  has  left  the  form  of  the  State  govern- 
ment open  to  human  regulation  ;  and,  that,  while  He  has 
substantially  settled  the  form  of  Church  government,  He 
has  so  settled  it  by  the  endowment  of  the  Episcopate 
with  joint  and  several  powers  as  to  make  it  adaptable  to 
the  civil  polity  of  any  State  in  which  it  may  reside,  and 
to  enable  its  rulers  to  govern  His  kingdom  officially, 
while  personally  they  are  subject  to  the  government  of 
the  State. 


36  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

2.  The   jurisdictions  of   these   two   governments  -are 
concurrent  in  so  far  as  they  extend  over  the  same  territory 
and  relate  to  the  same  persons. 

The  persons  who  occupy  a  certain  territory  owe  alle- 
giance to  the  State,  /.  e.,  to  the  civil  authority  which 
governs  in  that  territory.  They  also  owe  allegiance  to 
the  Church. 

But  they  are  necessarily  and  by  force  subject  to  the 
State  :  not  necessarily,  but  only  from  choice,  and  by 
moral  obligation,  subject  to  the  Church. 

The  same  persons  may  be  under  these  two  kinds  of 
government,  and  those  who  govern  in  one  may  be  the 
governed  in  the  other. 

3.  The  jurisdictions  are  complementary  in  respect  to 
their  administration  and  imposition  of  law. 

a.  The  State  administers  the  Divine  law  of  morals  so 
far  as  it  relates  to  the  temporal  well-being  of  man  in 
society,  republishing  and  declaring  that  law. 

b.  The  State  enacts  additional  laws  which  oblige  by 
virtue  of  the  authority  of  the  lawgiver  ;  so  that  the  mat- 
ter enjoined  or  forbidden,  being  in  itself  neither  right  nor 
wrong,  becomes  right  or  wrong  as  being  commanded  or 
forbidden. 

Both  these  kinds  of  law  are  enforced  by  temporal 
penalties. 

c.  The  Church  also  administers  the    Divine    law    of 
morals,  republishing  and  declaring  that  law  as  occasion 
may  require  ;   but  in  so  doing  it  has  in  view  not  only 
the  temporal  well-being  of  man  in  society,  but  also  the 
spiritual  well-being  of  the  individual  both  here  and  here- 
after.    Accordingly  the  Church  appeals  to  other  motives 
than  those  appealed  to  by  the  State.     The  State  appeals 
to  the  fear  of  temporal  penalties  ;  the  Church  appeals  to 


CHURCH  AND   STATE.  37 

motives  arising  from  the  love  of  God  and  man,  and  the 
hope  of  eternal  blessedness. 

d.  The  Church  also  administers  a  positive  law  of  God, 
distinct  from  the  moral  law,  enjoining  the  use  of  the 
Sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the  Eucharist,  and  the  ob- 
servance   of    other    rites    and    ceremonies    of    Divine 
authority. 

e.  The  Church  also  imposes  its  own  positive  laws  in 
respect  to  temporal  and  spiritual  matters,  which,  like  the 
laws  of  the  State  additional  to  the  moral  law,  are  of  obli- 
gation upon  its  members,  not  as  enjoining  or  forbidding 
that  which  is  in  itself  right  or  wrong,  but  because  they 
are  enacted   by  competent   authority.      These   positive 
laws,  being  additional  to  the  Divine  law,  either  moral  or 
positive,  must  not  be  contrary  to  that  Divine  law  ;  nor 
should  they  contravene  such  laws  of  the  State  as  have 
been  enacted  in  conformity  therewith. 

The  relative  obligation  of  one  who  lives  under  this 
twofold  allegiance  is,  it  is  true,  sometimes,  and  neces- 
sarily, difficult  to  determine.  There  are  two  very  sim- 
ple modes  of  settling  the  question.  One  is  that  the 
ultimate  authority  lies  in  the  State,  and  therefore,  in 
case  of  a  conflict  of  laws,  the  obligation  to  the  Church 
must  give  way  to  that  due  to  the  State.  The  other 
is  that  the  ultimate  authority  rests  in  the  Church,  and 
therefore,  in  case  of  conflict,  the  obligation  to  the  State 
must  give  way  to  that  due  to  the  Church.  But  simplicity 
is  not  always  the  measure  of  rectitude.  On  the  contrary, 
it  is  one  of  the  trials  of  faith,  that  the  right  road  is  beset 
with  difficulties.  The  fact  is,  that  obligation  is  deter- 
mined by  sanction  ;  and  each  allegiance  must  be  dis- 
charged under  the  constraint  of  that  sanction  which  it  is 
competent  to  impose.  The  laws  of  the  civil  authority 


38  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

must  be  obeyed,  or  the  penalty  of  disobedience  must  be 
endured :  and  the  same  is  true  of  the  laws  of  the  Church 
— only  it  is  manifest  that  the  sanctions  of  the  latter 
depend  for  their  force  and  effect  upon  the  faith  of  the 
individual ;  whereas,  in  the  former  case,  they  operate 
altogether  from  without.  Assuming,  however,  that  the 
faith  of  the  individual  leads  him  to  accept  the  authority 
of  the  Church,  which  in  a  given  case  is  opposed  to  that 
of  the  State,  it  will  be  a  matter  of  conscience  for  him  not 
to  obey  the  State  law.  It  will  not  follow  from  this  that 
the  State  law  has  no  authority,  and  should  not  be  en- 
forced :  it  will  follow  merely  that  the  conscientiously  dis- 
obedient individual  must  take  the  consequences  of  his  dis- 
obedience ;  and  if  his  faith  lead  him  to  prefer  the  spiritual 
to  the  temporal,  he  must  be  content  with  spiritual  conso- 
lation in  the  endurance  of  temporal  tribulation.  The  old 
English  divines  have  furnished  some  amusement  to  the 
ignorant  by  their  maintenance  of  what  is  called  the  doc- 
trine of  Passive  Obedience  ;  yet  the  principle  here  stated 
is  the  substance  of  that  doctrine  ;  and,  apart  from  the 
question  of  Church,  which  appears  to  be  an  irritating 
factor  in  the  argument,  there  is  probably  no  honest  man 
who  keeps  a  conscience  at  all,  who  will  not  accept  the 
principle  that  while  the  civil  authority  has  an  entire  right 
to  enforce  its  laws  by  their  proper  penalties,  the  individ- 
ual is  bound  to  suffer  those  penalties  rather  than  obey 
the  laws  which  his  conscience  rejects.* 


*  The  general  principle  of  discrimination  of  obligation  cannot  be 
more  happily  stated  than  by  Professor  Chase  in  his  note  at  page  6  of 
his  valuable  edition  of  Blackstone's  Commentaries:  "It  is  plainly 
apparent  that  a  human  law  might  be  directly  in  conflict  with  a  uni- 
versally received  principle  of  moral  duty,  and  there  could  be  no 
question  in  such  a  case  that  a  man  would  be  under  a  moral  obli- 


CHURCH  AND   STATE.  39 

The  laws  of  the  Church  are  found  in  forms  and 
ceremonies  prescribed  for  use  and  occasion  ;  in  rubrics 
pointing  out  the  manner  of  use  and  attendant  actions  ; 
in  creeds  and  articles  determining  faith  and  doctrine  ;  and 
in  canons,  which  have  a  wider  application  than  to  matters 
of  faith  or  worship  or  the  conduct  of  the  Divine  service. 
Yet  canon,  in  its  general  sense  of  rule,  may  be  said  to 
include  all  the  others.  A  form  of  worship,  for  example, 
is  but  the  expression  of  the  Church's  rule  for  that  service;* 
and  the  distinction  between  rubric  and  canon,  though 
it  has  some  special  significance  in  the  Church  in  this 
country,  is  rather  technical  than  material.  Canons  in 
their  earliest  form,  considered  as  expressions  of  the  will 
of  the  Church,  appear  to  have  resulted  from  the  action 
of  Bishops  in  council,  either  among  themselves  or  in 
their  diocesan  relations,  determining  as  to  cases  brought 
before  the  council,  and  deducing  from  the  determination 
in  the  particular  case  a  general  rule  of  future  applica- 
tion. Thus  they  seem  to  have  involved  the  exercise  of 
both  the  judicial  and  legislative  functions  of  the  Episco- 
pate ;  but  in  later  form  they  are  more  properly  legisla- 


gation  to  violate  the  law  ;  but  human  tribunals,  established  to  en- 
force the  law,  would  still  hold  him  under  a  legal  obligation  to  observe 
the  law,  and  would  punish  its  infraction.  In  fact,  such  tribunals 
could  not  do  otherwise  if  they  fulfilled  their  purpose.  And  as  posi- 
tive laws  seldom  or  never  conflict  with  principles  of  morals  which 
are  of  universal  acceptance,  it  would  lead  to  pernicious  results  if  men 
were  not  held  strictly  bound  to  obey  every  established  law,  whether 
they  deemed  it  right  or  wrong,  just  or  unjust ;  for,  otherwise,  each 
man's  conscience  would  be  set  above  positive  law ;  and  men's  con- 
sciences are  very  variable,  when  their  interest  or  personal  gratifica- 
tion is  concerned," 

*  In  this  sense  the  word  is  used  in  the  phrase,  "Canon  of  the 
mass."     So  also  we  speak  of  the  "Canon  of  Scripture." 


40  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

tive  :  so  that  a  canon  may  be  defined  to  be  a  rule  of 
faith  or  action  prescribed  by  competent  ecclesiastical 
authority,  imposing  obligation  upon  such  persons,  and 
as  to  such  matters,  as  are  within  the  jurisdiction  of  that 
authority. 


CHURCH   COEVAL    WITH  FALL    OF  MAN.        41 


PROPOSITION   VI. 

The  Church  of  God  on  earth  is  coexistent  with  the  redemp- 
tion of  man. 

"  THE  Church,  in  its  most  comprehensive  sense,  includes 
other  worlds  than  the  earth,  and  other  intelligent  creatures 
than  man."*  But  "with  the  Church  as  it  consists  of 
men  and  angels  (Heb.  xii.  22,  23)  we  are  not  to  meddle. 
.  .  .  What  manner  of  union  is  between  holy  men  and 
angels,  let  it  be  defined  by  angels  themselves,  or  at  least 
by  men  that  are  their  consorts  in  the  blissful  vision  of 
God  and  of  His  Christ."  f 

The  Church,  in  so  far  as  it  relates  to  man,  dates  from 
the  promise  of  the  Redeemer  (Gen.  iii.  15).  As  existing 
among  a  fallen  race,  it  was  made  necessary  by  the  fall, 
and  consists  of  a  selection  of  men  brought  out  of  their 
natural  condition  into  covenant  relation  with  God,  based 
upon  the  redemption  of  Christ.  As  such,  the  Church  of 
God  is  one  from  the  beginning  to  the  end  of  the  world  : 
identical,  although  existing  under  various  forms  or  dis- 
pensations. 

This  proposition,  therefore,  includes  two  others  : 

1.  The  Church  is  coeval  with  fallen  humanity. 

2.  The  Church  is  indefectible. 

i.  That  the  Church  is  coeval  with  fallen  humanity- 
appears  historically  from  the  Scriptures,  which  show  the 
establishment  of  the  covenant  of  redemption  directly 


*  Jarvis's  "Church  of  the  Redeemed,"  Introduction,  i. 
f  Jackson's  Works,   Book  XII.  ch.  iii.  2.     Cf.  also  the  first  four 
chapters  of  Field's  "  Of  the  Church." 


42  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

upon  the  fall  (Gen.  iii.),  and  the  continuance  of  a  chosen 
people  within  that  covenant  from  that  time. 

The  dispensations  under  which  the  Church  has  existed 
are  the  Patriarchal,  the  Mosaic,  and  the  Christian. 

A.  The  Patriarchal  dispensation  includes  : 

a.  The  period  in  which  the  family  and   the    Church 
were  coincident,  as  at  first  constituted  in  Adam.     Cain 
was  cast  out  of  the  Church,  which  was  continued  in  the 
line  of  Seth.      In  the  next  generation  began  men  to  call 
themselves  by   the   name   of    the    Lord    (Gen.    iv.    26, 
margin),  in   contradistinction   to  descendants   of   Cain, 
and  such  as  might  apostatize  to  them.     Afterward  the 
"  sons  of  God  " — not  angels,  but  the  descendants  of  Seth 
through  Enos — who  called  themselves  by  the  name  of 
the   Lord,  intermarried  with  the  daughters  of  men,  in 
consequence  of  which   ensued  wide-spread   corruption. 
(Gen.  vi.  1-7.)  * 

b.  The   period  when,  by  a   new  selection    in    Noah, 
family  and  Church  again  became  coincident.     To  save 
His  Church,  God  chose  Noah  and  his  family,  and  de- 
stroyed the  rest  of  men.     (Gen.  vi.  8  ;  vii. ;  viii.) 

c.  The  period  when   God   again   made   choice  of   a 
particular  family,  new  constituting  the  Church  in  Abra- 
ham.    (Gen.  xii.  1-3  ;  xvii.  1-14.) 

B.  The  Mosaic  dispensation  covers  the  period  extend- 
ing from  Moses  to  Christ,  when  the  family  in  which  the 
Church  was  planted  grew  into  a  nation. 

Under  these  two  dispensations  the  Church  existed  in 
an  imperfect  and  preparatory  condition.  The  Church 
in  the  present,  or  Christian,  dispensation,  exists  in  its 
maturity  ;  although,  of  course,  its  existence  is  still  pre- 


*  Cf.  Jarvis,  "Church  of  the  Redeemed,"  pp.  14,  15. 


CHURCH  INDEFECTIBLE.  43 

paratory  to  that  which  it  will  possess  in  the  world  to 
come.  Having  reference  to  the  economy  of  salvation  by 
a  Redeemer,  we  say  that  in  previous  dispensations  the 
Church  was  incomplete,  as  possessing  the  promise,  but 
not  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  of  redemption.  The 
expectation  of  the  redemption  was  the  characteristic  of 
the  Church  in  previous  dispensations  ;  the  possession  of 
that  redemption  is  the  characteristic  of  the  Church  in 
the  present  dispensation. 

C.  The  present  dispensation  includes  : 

a.  The  period  of  transition  from  the  Jewish  period, 
extending  from   the   baptism   of   Christ  to  the  day  of 
Pentecost. 

b.  The  period  of  the  settlement  and  organization  of 
the  Church  by  the  Apostles,  under  the  direction  of  the 
Holy  Ghost. 

c.  The  period  beginning  with  Bishops  succeeding  into 
the  office  of  Apostles,  and  continuing  to  the  end. 

2.  The  indefectibility  of  the  Church  under  the  present 
dispensation  is  to  be  inferred  : 

A.  From  the  relation  of  the  Church  to  the  plan  of 
redemption,    which   makes   the   imposition    of    another 
dispensation  unnecessary,  and  therefore  improbable. 

Redemption  is  wrought  in  time,  to  procure  salvation 
for  eternity.  Various  dispensations  might  be  requisite 
in  preparation  for  redemption  ;  but,  redemption  being 
wrought,  the  Church  is  thereby  placed  under  the  dis- 
pensation which  is  immediately  introductory  to  eternity. 

B.  From  prophecy,  which  expressly  declares  the  per- 
petuity of  the  kingdom  of  Christ,  e.g.  (Dan.  ii.  44)  :  4<  A 
kingdom  which  shall  never  be  destroyed."     (St.  Luke,  i. 
23)  :  "Of  His  kingdom  there  shall  be  no  end." 

C.  From  the  promise  of  our  Lord  himself :  "  On  this 


44  ECCLESIASTICAL    POLITY. 

rock  I  will  build  my  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall 
not  prevail  against  it  "  (St. , Matt.  xvi.  18). 

D.  From  the  perpetual   commission  to   the   ministry 
which  He  set  over  the  Church  :  "  Go  ye     ...     and, 
lo,  I  am  with  you   alway,  even    unto   the   end   of   the 
world  "  (St.  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20). 

E.  From  expressions  of  His  Apostles,  e.g.:  "We  which 
are  alive  and  remain  unto  the  coming   of  the    Lord " 
(r  Thess.  iv.  15).     "  As  often  as  ye  eat  this  bread    .    .    . 
ye  do  show  the  Lord's  death   till  He   come"  (i  Cor. 
xi.  26). 

F.  From  the  reason  of  its  institution.     While  the  world 
lasts,  there  must  be  the  same  necessity  for  the  application 
of  God's  mercy  and  grace  which  caused  the  existence  of 
the  Church  ;  and  while  the  reason  for  the  existence  of  the 
Church  continues,  the  Church  continues. 

On  the  subjects  of  this  proposition  the  student  should 
read  Jarvis's  "  Church  of  the  Redeemed,"  introduction 
and  first  period  ;  Bilson's  "  Perpetual  Government  of  the 
Church,"  ch.  i.,  ii.  ;  and  Field's  "Of  the  Church,"  Book 
I.  ch.  i.-vi. 


ECCLESIA.  45 


PROPOSITION    VII. 

"  The  Church  is  the  multitude  and  number  of  those  whom 
Almighty  God  severeth  from  the  rest  of  the  world  by  the 
work  of  His  grace,  and  calleth  to  the  participation  of 
eternal  happiness  by  the  knowledge  of  such  supernatural 
verities  as  concerning  their  everlasting  good  He  hath 
revealed  in  Christ  His  Son,  and  such  other  precious  and 
happy  means  as  He  hath  appointed  to  further  and  set 
forward  the  work  of  their  salvation.  So  that  it  is  the 
work  of  grace  and  the  heavenly  call  that  give  being  to 
the  Church,  and  make  it  a  different  society  from  all  other 
companies  of  men  in  the  world  that  have  no  other  light 
of  knowledge  nor  motive  of  desire  but  that  which  is 
natural ;  whence,  for  distinction  from  them,  it  is  named 
Eeclesia,  a  multitude  called  out."  * 


*  Taken   from  Field,   "Of  the  Church,"  Book   I.   ch.   vi.     For 
explanation  see  his  ch.  vii. 


46  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 


PROPOSITION    VIII. 

As  there  are  marks  and  notes  which  distinguish  Judaism 
from  Paganism,  and  Christianity  from  Judaism,  so  there 
are  marks  and  notes  which  distinguish  the  Catholic 
Church  from  all  other  societies  of  men  and  professions  of 
religion  in  the  world. 

DR.  FIELD,  in  his  treatise  "  Of  the  Church,"  Book  II. 
ch.  ii.,  treats  of  this  subject  to  the  following  effect : 

1.  That   which    distinguishes   the    Church   from   the 
society  of   pagan   infidels,  is  the  profession  of  Divine, 
supernatural,  and  revealed  verities  ;  but  this  profession 
does  not  distinguish  Christians  from  Jews. 

2.  The  profession  of  Divine  verities  revealed  in  Christ, 
whom  the  Church  acknowledges  the  Son  of  God  and  the 
Saviour  of  the  world,  distinguishes  it  from  the  society  of 
Jews. 

3.  The  profession  of  the  faith  of  Christ,  while  it  dis- 
tinguishes the  Church  from  pagans  and  Jews,  does  not 
distinguish  the  right  believing  or  orthodox  Church  from 
heretics  ;  but  it  is  so  distinguished  by  the  entire  profes- 
sion of  Divine  verities  according  to  the  rule  of  faith  left 
by  Christ  and  the  Apostles. 

4.  The  entire  profession  of  the  faith,  while  it  distin- 
guishes  from   heretics,  is   not   a   complete   and   proper 
distinction    of    the    Catholic    Church,   because     schis- 
matics may,  and  sometimes  do,  hold   such   entire  pro- 
fession. 

5.  The   notes    that   are    inseparable,    and    absolutely 


CATHOLIC  CHURCH  DISTINGUISHED.  47 

proper,  and  which  always  sever  the  true  Church  from  all 
conventicles,*  are  these : 

First.  The  entire  profession  of  those  supernatural 
verities  which  God  hath  revealed  in  Christ  His  Son. 

Secondly.  The  use  of  such  holy  ceremonies  and  sacra- 
ments as  He  hath  instituted  and  appointed  to  serve  as 
provocations  to  godliness,  preservatives  from  sin,  memo- 
rials of  the  ben£fits  of  Christ,  warrants  for  the  greater 
security  of  our  belief,  and  marks  of  distinction  to  separate 
His  own  from  strangers. 

Thirdly.  An  union  or  connection  of  men  in  this  pro- 
fession and  use  of  these  sacraments  under  lawful  pastors 
and  guides  appointed,  authorized,  and  sanctified  to  direct 
and  lead  them  in  the  happy  ways  of  eternal  salvation. 


*  Dr.  Field  says:   "All  conventicles  of  erring  and  seduced  mis- 
creants;"  but  the  principles  are  equally  sound  without  the  expletives. 


48  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 


PROPOSITION    IX. 

The  faith,  sacraments,  and  ministry  of  Christ  are  so  abso- 
lutely proper  to  the  Church  that  no  society  which  lacks 
them  can  be,  as  such,  part  of  the  Church ;  and  resulting 
from  these  properties  of  the  Church  are  certain  prop- 
erly applicable  terms  of  description,  indicating  qualities 
whereby  it  may  be  known — called,  hence,  notes  of  the 
Church — such  as  those  named  in  the  Creeds,  wherein  we 
profess  our  faith  in  One  Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Church. 

i.  THE  Church  is  ONE  :  the  company  of  God's  chosen 
people  existing  now  as  always,  though  in  different  form, 
in  contradistinction  to  the  rest  of  mankind. 

The  chosen  people  are  one  in  respect  of  their  common 
calling ;  their  common  Divine  Head  ;  their  common 
adherence  to  the  faith,  sacraments,  and  ministry  of 
Christ ;  one  in  respect  of  the  Divine  purpose  :  not  per- 
fectly one  in  fact,  because  human  corruption  in  this,  as 
in  other  matters,  contravenes  the  will  of  God. 

The  Church,  in  principle,  according  to  its  Divine  con- 
stitution, is  capable  of  a  certain  lawful  division  consistent 
with  unity.  Constitutionally  perpetuated  and  extended, 
its  several  parts  are  one  Church,  however  they  may  be 
distinguished  in  respect  of  location,  or  by  local  and  tem- 
porary usages  which,  although  additional,  are  not  con- 
trary to  the  Divine  constitution  of  the  Church. 

But  every  lawful  or  constitutional  division  is  connected 
with  every  other  such  division  by  a  common  bond,  and 
that  common  bond  is  its  lawful  and  constitutional  con- 
nection with  that  society  which  Christ  founded.  This 


PROPERTIES  AND  NOTES.  49 

connection  is  made  through  the  ministry  upon  which 
Christ  devolved  the  duty  of  the  extension  of  the  Church. 
Those  who  are  in  communion  with  the  Apostolic  ministry 
are  in  communion  with  the  Church  which  Christ  com- 
mitted to  the  government  of  the  Apostolic  ministry. 

Hence  the  Episcopate,  which  is  the  continuation  of  the 
Apostolic  ministry,  appears  as  the  Divinely  appointed 
centre  of  the  unity  of  the  visible  Church.  In  its  normal 
condition  the  Church  possesses  Bishops,  who  demonstrate 
their  communion  with  Christ  by  their  communion  with 
each  other  in  the  faith,  and  sacraments  of  His  appoint- 
ment ;  and  members,  who  demonstrate  their  communion 
with  Christ  by  their  communion  with  their  respective 
Bishops. 

Thus  the  Church  is  seen  to  be  capable  of  a  division 
into  parts  which  is  not  inconsistent  with  unity.  Every 
such  part  is  in  communion  with  every  other  through  that 
communion  which  each  has  with  its  Bishop,  the  Bishops 
being  in  communion  with  each  other,  on  the  basis  and 
through  the  instrumentality  of  the  original  faith  and 
sacraments  of  Christ.  But  no  one  part  is  the  whole 
Church  ;  and  in  so  far  as  any  one  portion  departs  from 
the  rule  of  faith,  or  the  order  prescribed  in  the  Divine 
constitution,  it  departs  from  the  unity  of  the  Church. 

The  present  condition  of  the  Church  is  abnormal  in 
respect  of  the  absence  of  a  visible  unity.  The  restoration 
of  visible  unity  by  the  reestablishment  of  intercom- 
munion between  coordinate  branches  of  the  Church  can 
only  be  by  a  recurrence  on  all  sides  to  that  original  con- 
stitution which  has  the  warrant  of  Divine  authority,  and 
is  evidenced  by  the  structure  of  the  primitive  Church  ; 
by  the  removal,  where  they  exist,  of  such  things  as  are 
contrary  to  that  constitution  ;  and  the  restoration,  where 


5°  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

they  are  wanting,  of  such  things  as  are  essential  to  it, 
and  by  the  mutual  toleration  of  such  things  as,  although 
additional,  are  not  contrary  to  it.* 

It  is  important,  in  considering  the  doctrine  of  the  unity 
of  the  Church,  to  distinguish  between  schismatical  socie- 
ties and  their  individual  members. 

Such  societies  as  have  been  organized  under  the  name 
of  Churches,  but  in  an  unauthorized  and  unconstitutional 
way,  are  separate  from  the  unity  of  the  Church.  These 
societies  possess  no  authority,  having  never  derived 
authority  through  a  lawful  connection  with  the  Church 
founded  by  Christ.  Their  position  is  schismatical,  but 
how  far  their  individual  members  may  be  guilty  of 
schism  can  be  known  only  to  God.  In  general,  probably 
their  intent  is  to  be  members  of  the  Church.  And  it 
may  be  assumed  that  such  evidences  as  they  give  of  the 
possession  of  the  grace  of  God  are  due  to  the  mercy 
of  God,  Who  does  not  hold  them  responsible  for  a  posi 
tion  which  is  attributable  to  the  fault  of  others  rather 
than  of  themselves. 

But  this  in  no  way  alters  our  responsibility  for  the 
trust  of  a  lawful  connection  with  the  Church  founded  by 
Christ,  and  should  in  no  degree  lessen  our  faith  in  the 
Divine  institution  of  the  Church  as  a  visible  society. 

The  historic  continuity  of  that  society  which  Christ 
founded,  and  the  necessity  of  a  lawful  connection  with  it 
through  that  ministry  which  He  appointed  to  perpetuate 
it,  are  principles  which  it  is  the  duty  of  Christians  to 
hold  as  essential  to  the  unity  of  Christ's  Church. 

2.  The  Church  is  HOLY  on  account  of  its  separation 

*  As  to  the  possibility  of  the  division  of  the  Catholic  Church  in 
respect  of  external  communion,  see  Palmer,  "Church  of  Christ,"  Pt. 
I.  ch.  iv.  §  in. 


PROPERTIES  AND  NOTES.  5 1 

from  the  world,  and  on  account  of  the  holiness  required 
of  its  members,  and  conferred  by  the  Holy  Ghost  on  such 
as  are  faithful. 

3.  It  is  CATHOLIC  as  being  no  longer  confined  to  one 
nation  as  formerly,  but  open  to  all  men  ;  as  the  recipient 
of  all  truth   necessary  to  salvation;  and  as  continuing 
through  all  ages. 

4.  It  is  APOSTOLIC  as  having  received  its  ministry  and 
its   faith    and    sacraments    from    Christ,    through    the 
Apostles. 


52  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 


PROPOSITION    X. 

The  claim  of  any  particular  body  to  be  a  Church  is  to  be 
brought  to  the  test  of  its  possession  of  these  notes. 

IF  these  notes  are  necessarily  characteristic  of  the 
Church  as  a  whole,  it  is  obvious  that  no  society  which 
does  not  partake  of  them  can  properly  be  called  a 
Church.  Indeed,  no  society  can  be  called  a  Church  in 
the  proper  sense  of  the  term,  except  it  be  the  whole 
Church,  or  that  portion  of  the  whole  which  lawfully  ex- 
ists in  some  particular  place.  There  being  but  one  Christ, 
and  the  Church  being  the  body  of  Christ,  there  is  but 
one  Church,  though  the  name  Church  may  be  properly 
enough  applied  to  each  portion,  which  is  the  Church  to 
those  whom  it  includes  in  any  particular  place.  A  house 
may  have  several  entrances  or  openings,  and  each  of 
these  is  to  him  who  enters  by  it  as  much  the  house  as 
the  others  are  to  other  comers.  Strictly  speaking,  of 
course,  the  entrance  is  not  the  house  ;  but  that  is  because 
the  part  is  not  the  whole.  Yet  each  entrance  is  the  house 
to  him  who  goes  in  by  it,  in  a  sense  in  which  another 
building  in  the  neighborhood  is  not  the  house.  And  so 
it  is  quite  proper  to  call  a  part  of  the  Church,  a  Church, 
or  the  Church,  provided  it  be  really  a  part  of  this  house 
of  God's  building,  and  not  a  house  which  men  have 
built  in  the  neighborhood.  Hence  in  the  Apostles'  time, 
and  throughout  the  age  of  unity,  that  portion  of  the 
(  hurch  which  existed  in  any  particular  place  was  nat- 
urally known  as  the  Church  of  that  place  ;  as  we  read 


RIGHT   TO    THE  NAME    CHURCH.  53 

in  the  New  Testament  of  the  Church  at  Antioch,  the 
Church  of  Ephesus,  the  Church  in  Smyrna,  etc. 

But  in  modern  times  we  have  a  great  number  of  re- 
ligious societies  of  more  or  less  importance,  which  are 
called  Churches.  Some  of  these  in  their  origin  did  not 
assume  this  title  ;  but  as  their  members  by  degrees  looked 
more  and  more  exclusively  to  those  societies  for  the  privi- 
leges which  are  only  in  the  gift  of  the  Church  to  bestow, 
so  by  degrees  the  title  was  in  common  parlance  assured 
to  them.  And  at  present  there  is  no  more  hesitation,  on 
the  part  of  a  society  organized  for  religious  purposes,  in 
appropriating  the  title  of  Church,  than  there  is  on  the 
part  of  an  association  incorporated  under  the  banking 
laws  in  assuming  the  name  of  bank.  So  deeply  rooted 
is  the  feeling  out  of  which  this  assumption  grows,  that 
it  is  apt  to  be  regarded  as  a  breach  of  courtesy  to  fail  in 
the  designation,  for  instance,  of  a  Congregational  So- 
ciety as  a  Congregational  Church,  or  of  the  Methodist 
Society  as  the  Methodist  Church.  And  among  those  who 
are  fond  of  discussing  the  question  of  the  union  of 
Protestant  societies,  it  is  the  common  phrase  of  the  day 
to  speak  of  them  as  "  the  Churches." 

The  use  of  this  language  proceeds  from  the  conviction 
that  each  of  these  societies  is  an  independent  and  auton- 
omous body,  and  that  its  members,  as  free  agents,  have 
the  right  to  associate  themselves  in  such  a  body.  It 
must  be  obvious,  however,  that  this  conviction  results 
from  the  assumption  that  men  are  without  any  obligation 
in  this  matter,  except  such  as  they  may  impose  upon 
themselves.  If  it  were  true  that  no  provision  of  the 
Divine  will  imposed  upon  men  the  obligation  of  mem- 
bership in  a  Church  constituted  by  Divine  authority,  it 
would,  of  course,  follow  that  men  would  have  the  right  to 


54  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

constitute  for  themselves  such  societies  as  might  in  their 
judgment  be  useful  in  the  attainment  of  the  same  ends 
for  which  the  Church  claims  to  have  been  constituted,  or 
for  such  of  them  as  they  might  consider  particularly  de- 
sirable. But  the  truth  of  this  supposed  want  of  provi- 
sion is  the  point  in  question.  It  is,  indeed,  in  evidence 
that  God  left  not  Himself  without  witness  in  this  matter, 
either  in  the  Patriarchal,  the  Mosaic,  or  the  Christian 
Dispensation  ;  and  that  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  are 
accepted  by  those  to  whom  this  evidence  is  presented  as 
the  sufficient  history  of  the  development  of  these  suc- 
cessive dispensations,  throughout  plainly  show  the  exist- 
ence, by  Divine  authority  and  institution,  of  an  organized 
and  visible  society,  distinguished  from  all  other  societies 
or  companies  of  men,  and  based  upon  the  calling  and 
covenant  of  its  Divine  Head.  But  this  evidence,  al- 
though it  has  been  presented  and  re-presented  in  in- 
numerable forms,  with  the  widest  scope  and  the  most 
exact  precision,  is  waved  aside  as  impertinent  and  incon- 
clusive ;  and,  ignoring  all  preexisting  obligation,  men 
continue  to  act  upon  their  supposed  right  to  associate 
themselves  according  to  no  principle  but  that  of  their 
own  individual  sense  of  what  is  desirable,  that  is,  accord- 
ing to  their  own  will. 

Nothing,  probably,  has  contributed  more  to  this  pre- 
vailing persuasion  than  the  idea  that,  according  to  the 
Divine  will  and  purpose,  the  Church  is  not  a  visible  and 
organized  society,  but  consists  of  the  whole  number  of 
those  who  by  their  true  faith  and  sincere  purpose  are 
acceptable  to  God  ;  and  who,  therefore,  since  God  only 
can  discern  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart,  are 
known  to  God  alone.  If  the  Church  consists  only  of 
those  who  possess  qualities  which  are  to  human  percep- 


RIGHT    TO    THE  NAME   CHURCH.  55 

tions  invisible,  the  Church  itself  is  invisible  ;  and  if  the 
Church  be,  according  to  the  Divine  will,  invisible,  the 
gathering  of  men  into  one  or  more  visible  societies  is  a 
matter  of  pure  conventionality,  the  rules  and  conditions 
of  each  association  being  entirely  subject  to  the  agree- 
ment of  those  who  are  concerned  in  it.  So  that  in  pro- 
portion to  the  prevalence  of  the  idea  that  the  Church  of 
God,  the  only  Church  which  He  has  called  into  being, 
and  recognizes  as  His  own,  is  an  invisible,  unorganized 
multitude,  consisting  solely  of  individuals  who  are  di- 
rectly and  immediately  united  to  Christ  by  the  several  faith 
of  each  person,  will  be  the  prevalence  of  the  persuasion 
that  the  visible  Church  consists  only  of  such  of  these 
persons  as  may  of  their  own  will  and  choice,  and  by 
reason  of  similarity  of  tastes  and  circumstances,  associate 
themselves  for  the  purpose  of  mutual  relations  of  a  re- 
ligious character.  And  where  this  persuasion  prevails,  it 
is  natural  that  men  should  be  indifferent  or  hostile  to  the 
claim  of  any  society  or  body  of  men  to  represent  iq  any 
particular  place  that  Society  which  Christ  originally 
founded,  to  be  extended  and  perpetuated  to  every  place, 
and  throughout  all  time,  as  the  custodian  of  His  faith 
and  the  dispenser  of  His  grace,  for  the  eternal  benefit  of 
those  whom  He  has,  by  admission  to  membership  in  it, 
called  to  become  parties  to  His  covenant.  Nor  can  one 
be  surprised  that  such  a  claim,  with  whatever  modesty  of 
humility  presented,  should  be  perfectly  hateful  to  those 
imbued  with  such  persuasion  ;  and  that  until  such  per- 
suasion can  be  removed,  those  who  are  actuated  by  it 
should  continue  their  adherence  to  existing  societies,  and 
proceed  to  the  formation  of  new  ones  as  occasion  may 
seem  to  them  to  require. 

This  persuasion  is  the  more  difficult  to  remove  because, 


5^  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

like  most  heretical  notions,  it  is  connected  with  the  profes- 
sion of  a  higher  degree  of  sanctity.  To  be  united  with 
Christ  directly,  and  without  any  human  mediation,  seems 
to  some  to  involve  a  more  vital  religion  and  a  truer 
spirituality  than  to  be  connected  with  Christ  outwardly 
by  the  medium  of  a  visible  ministry  and  sacraments. 
And  so,  indeed,  it  does,  if  the  connection  be  merely  out- 
ward. But,  on  the  other  hand,  to  be  united  with  Christ 
by  the  grace  communicated  by  means  of  a  visible  ministry 
and  sacraments  of  His  institution  involves  certainly  a 
truer  spirituality  than  is  involved  in  the  rejection  and 
disregard  of  means  of  His  appointment,  and  the  substitu- 
tion of  some  other  means,  or  of  a  bare  personal  volition. 
The  most  effectual  antidote  to  the  poison  of  this  persua- 
sion is  to  be  found  in  the  right  understanding  of  the 
position  of  the  Church,  as  being  a  means  to  an  end  and 
not  the  end  itself.  Outward  ministries  are  instituted  for 
inward  benefits,  and  (if  there  is  sufficient  evidence  of 
the  Divine  institution)  presumably  because  no  other  way 
for  the  communication  of  such  benefits  seemed  equally 
effectual  to  the  Divine  wisdom.  To  throw  these  out- 
ward means  aside,  therefore,  and  make  pretension  to  the 
appropriation  of  the  inward  benefits  without  them,  is 
properly  evidence  not  of  spiritual  mindedness,  but  of 
impiety. 

That  which  misleads  men  in  the  study  of  the  Church  as 
presented  in  the  Gospel,  is  the  comparison  of  the  real 
relation  to  Christ  and  the  spiritual  unity  with  Him  there 
attributed  to  His  true  followers,  and  the  apparent  absence 
of  such  relation  and  unity  in  many  who  are  partakers  of 
the  ministrations  of  the  Church  ;  from  which  it  is  inferred 
that  the  words  of  Christ  with  reference  to  the  Church  are 
to  be  understood  only  as  pointing  to  those  who  possess 


RIGHT   TO    THE  NAME   CHURCH.  57 

such  relation  and  unity,  and  not  to  those  who  have  been 
equally  with  them  called  to  the  privilege  and  benefit 
thereof.  It  is  to  be  remembered,  however,  first,  that  the 
language  used  in  the  Gospel  assumes  that  to  be  accom- 
plished which  the  Divine  Founder  intended  to  be 
accomplished  ;  so  that  the  means  instituted  are  through- 
out treated  as  effectual  means,  and  the  Church  is  treated 
of  as  the  company  of  those  who  are  illuminated,  regener- 
ated, sanctified,  and  saved  ;  and,  second,  that  it  is  dis- 
tinctly allowed  that  they  are  not  all  Israel  that  are  of 
Israel,  and  that  this  company  includes,  and  will  always 
continue  to  include,  many  who  have  received  the  grace 
of  God  in  vain.  That  those  who  have  not  received  this 
grace  in  vain,  and  who  are  truly  united  to  Christ,  should 
be  known  clearly  to  Him  and  not  to  the  world,  is  only 
what  might  be  presumed  and  expected  ;  and  that  these 
may  be  properly  enough  spoken  of  as  the  Church  Invisible 
is  not  to  be  denied — not  only  the  fact,  but  this  descrip- 
tion of  the  fact  has  been  always  recognized  in  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Church.  But  the  idea  that  the  Church  Visible 
and  its  means  of  grace  have  either  not  been  instituted  at 
all,  or  have  been  instituted  for  nothing,  and  that  the  true 
Church  of  God  consists  of  those  who  are  superior  to  and 
free  from  all  such  mediation,  and  who  think  themselves 
so  mentally  and  spiritually  united  to  Christ  as  individuals 
that  all  such  proffered  mediation  is  to  be  regarded  as  an 
impertinence  engendered  of  craft  or  superstition,  is  one 
that  finds  no  countenance  either  in  Holy  Scripture  or  in 
the  teaching  of  the  Church  itself,  and  one,  indeed,  which 
may  be  justly  regarded  as  a  mere  modern  invention. 

The  claim,  then,  of  any  society  of  men  to  be  a  Church, 
if  it  be  based  upon  the  persuasion  of  an  inherent  and 
natural  right  of  association,  cannot  stand  if  it  appear  that 


5»  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

the  natural  right  asserted  has  been  superseded  by  the 
imposition  of  a  moral  obligation  to  be  associated  in  that 
manner,  as  well  as  for  those  ends,  which  have  been  de- 
clared by  the  Divine  will.  Nor  can  it  be  allowed  that 
the  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  any  more  than  of 
the  Old,  give  evidence  of  the  right  of  men  individually 
to  claim  a  membership  in  a  Church  Invisible  which  shall 
relieve  them  from  the  obligation  of  membership  in  the 
Church  Visible  which  Christ  instituted,  and  entitle  them 
to  institute  visible  societies  at  their  own  pleasure  and 
called  after  their  own  names,  or  names  of  their  own 
devising.  It  is  not  a  question  of  names  or  of  courtesy, 
but  a  question  of  fact,  whether  such  societies,  by  whatever 
name  known,  are  or  are  not  Churches.  Names,  indeed, 
are  in  themselves  no  notes  of  the  Church,  but  only  in  so 
far  as  they  may  truly  indicate  in  any  way  the  possessing 
of  the  essential  qualities  of  the  Church.  A  true  branch 
of  the  Church,  such  a  division  or  distinct  portion  of  the 
Church  as  in  any  place  may  have  been  lawfully  established 
in  accordance  with  the  Divine  constitution  of  the  whole 
body,  may  have  a  name  in  addition  to  that  of  its  place  of 
residence,  without  derogating  from  its  right  to  represent 
the  whole  body  as  that  part  of  it  which  belongs  to  that 
place.  And  a  mere  sect  originating  in  modern  times, 
may  have  a  name  descriptive  of  Apostolic  origin  and 
Catholic  character  without  being  either  Catholic  or 
Apostolic.  The  question  in  every  case  is  whether  the 
society  which  is  called  a  Church  has  the  faith,  the  sacra- 
ments, and  the  ministry  of  Christ ;  whether  it  has  the 
mark  of  unity  as  being  one  with  that  Church  which 
Christ  founded,  and  as  having  derived  from  that  source, 
by  uninterrupted  succession,  the  faith,  sacraments,  and 
ministry  with  which  He  endowed  His  Church ;  or 


RIGHT   TO    THE  NAME   CHURCH.  59 

whether  the  time  can  be  pointed  out  when  that  society 
organized  itself  and  adopted  a  faith  and  sacraments 
which  it  assumed  to  be  those  of  Christ,  and  gave  author- 
ity to  a  ministry  which  the  Episcopal  successors  into  the 
Apostolic  office  did  not  communicate.* 


*  The  student  should  read  in  connection  with  this  proposition  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Wilson's  "Church  Identified." 


6o  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 


PROPOSITION   XI. 

As  the  Church  is  by  Divine  appointment  a  visible  society, 
so  it  is  by  the  appointment  of  its  Divine  Founder  con- 
tinually supplied  with  a  visible  Ministry  intrusted  with 
powers  correspondent  to  those  exercised  by  Him  during 
His  earthly  ministry. 

This  Ministry  represents  the  authority  of  Christ.  It 
has  no  authority  of  itself,  but  it  has  such  authority  as  it 
derives  from  Christ.  The  powers  which  Christ  as  the 
Head  of  the  mediatorial  kingdom  possesses  in  all  ful- 
ness, He  imparts  to  His  Ministry  in  measure  and  degree 
for  the  benefit  of  His  people. 

We  infer  the  powers  of  Christ  to  be  of  three  kinds,  from 
the  three  functions  which  the  Word  of  God  attributes  to 
Him.  He  is  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King  ;  and  the  powers 
which  under  these  names  He  possesses  in  their  fulness, 
He  imparts  to  His  Ministry  in  measure  and  degree. 

These  powers  may  be  generally  described  as  the  power 
of  speaking  and  acting  from  God  to  the  people,  as  preach- 
ing, baptizing,  teaching,  warning,  censuring,  absolving, 
communicating,  blessing,  ruling,  and  perpetuating  rule 
(overseeing,  ordaining,  etc.),  and  the  power  of  speaking 
and  acting  from  the  people  to  God,  as  mediating  and 
interceding  by  prayer  and  sacrifice. 

These  powers  were  characteristic  of  the  ministry  of 
Christ,  and  have,  since  His  departure  from  the  earth, 
been  characteristic  of  the  Ministry  which  He  established 
in  His  Church.  The  parallel  between  Christ  and  the 
Ministry  which  He  appointed  to  succeed  Him  in  respect 
of  the  powers  to  be  exercised  for  the  benefit  of  the 


POWERS   OF  MINISTRY.  6 1 

Church  is  plainly  discernible,  and  throws  much  light 
upon  the  nature  and  design  of  the  Ministry,  as  well  as 
upon  the  order  and  distribution  of  its  functions. 

It  is  to  be  noted,  in  the  first  place,  that,  in  the  relation 
of  our  Lord  to  the  Church,  He  is  to  be  regarded  as  being 
Himself  the  incumbent  of  an  office  comprising  certain 
functions.  We  are  not,  then,  in  this  connection,  to  con- 
sider Him  only  in  His  Divine  capacity  as  the  Eternal 
Word  or  Son  of  God,  but  as  the  Son  of  God  incarnate, 
and,  as  such,  in  His  capacity  of  God  made  man,  receiving 
and  executing  a  commission  conferred  upon  Him  by  the 
Father,  and  enabled  and  qualified  for  the  discharge  of 
that  commission  by  the  grace  imparted  by  the  Holy 
Spirit.  He  is  the  Head  of  the  mediatorial  kingdom  ; 
the  Beginning  of  that  new  creation  of  the  human  race 
which  results  from  His  redemption,  and  which,  in  the 
counsels  of  Divine  Wisdom,  was  conceived  to  replace  the 
ruins  of  the  old  Adam  ;  and  the  Chief  of  that  organiza- 
tion which,  in  the  same  wisdom,  was  designed  as  the 
means  of  communicating  to  men  the  benefit  of  participa- 
tion in  this  new  creation,  the  knowledge  of  the  truth 
Divinely  revealed,  and  the  grace  whereby  the  natural 
man  is  transformed  into  the  spiritual.  That  our  Lord  is 
the  author  of  that  redemption  upon  which  is  based  the 
covenant  of  Divine  grace  for  man,  and  that  He  was  in 
His  human  life  the  perfect  model  and  example  of  all 
whose  faith  leads  them  to  be  His  followers,  is  commonly 
recognized  by  all  Christian  people.  But  it  is  not  so  com- 
monly understood  that  His  human  life  was  not  merely 
individual,  but  also  official,  and  that  what  He  did  was  not 
of  His  own  mere  motion,  but  that  He  was  thereunto  com- 
missioned by  the  Father  and  enabled  by  the  Holy  Ghost. 
And  the  consequence  of  such  want  of  apprehension  is, 


62  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

among  other  things,  the  failure  to  realize  the  organic 
character  of  the  work  of  Christ,  and  the  postponement  of 
the  origin  of  the  Church  of  Christ  to  the  later  period  of 
Apostolic  or,  perhaps,  sub-Apostolic  times.  Even  among 
those  who  have  come  under  the  influence  of  the  Church 
idea,  and  who  earnestly  believe  in  and  maintain  the  order 
as  well  as  the  faith  of  the  Church,  it  is  not  unusual  to  find 
the  Church  derived  from  Apostolic  organization,  and  the 
day  of  Pentecost  assigned  as  the  birthday  of  the  Church. 
That  the  Church  then  received  an  addition  of  spiritual 
power  of  which  it  had  before  only  enjoyed  the  promise 
is  true  enough,  but  to  affirm  that  the  Church  came  then 
first  into  being,  and  that  the  Holy  Spirit  was  then  first 
instrumental  in  the  work  of  its  ministry,  is  to  build  with- 
out the  foundation.  In  fact,  both  the  origin  of  the 
Church  and  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit  upon  it  must 
be  referred  back  to  the  life  and  ministry  of  Christ  Him- 
self. And  not  only  was  Christ  the  founder  and,  in  such 
degree  as  was  suited  to  the  time,  the  organizer  of  the 
order  of  His  Church,  but  what  He  did  in  that  work  is 
specifically  attributed  in  Holy  Scripture  to  the  Holy 
Spirit,  by  whose  power  He  was  actuated  ;  and  the  Apostles, 
continuing  His  work  by  His  direction,  continue  to  work 
by  the  same  power  of  His  Holy  Spirit. 

The  angel  which  appeared  to  Joseph  assured  him  that 
that  which  was  conceived  in  the  Blessed  Virgin  was  of 
the  Holy  Ghost ;  *  and  the  angel  which  appeared  to  her 
as  the  herald  of  the  birth  of  Jesus,  foretold  that  the 
Holy  Ghost  should  come  upon  her,  and  the  power  of  the 
Highest  should  overshadow  her,  therefore  that  Holy 
Thing  which  should  be  born  of  her  should  be  called  the 


*  St.  Matt.  i.  20. 


POWERS  OF  MINISERY.  63 

Son  of  God.*  Whence  it  appears,  as  expressed  in  the 
Apostles'  Creed,  that  Jesus  was  conceived  by  the  Holy 
Ghost;  or,  as  expressed  in  the  Nicene  Creed,  that  he 
was  incarnate  by  the  Holy  Ghost  of  the  Virgin  Mary ; 
and  from  the  influence  and  operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
both  here  and  throughout  His  earthly  life,  the  God- 
man  Jesus  receives  His  official  title  of  the  Christ,  or 
the  Messiah — the  Anointed  One.  In  the  Old  Testament 
period  we  find  the  use  of  unction,  or  anointing,  in  the 
admission  to  the  offices  of  prophet,  priest,  and  king, 
the  functions  pertaining  to  which  offices  pertain  also  to 
the  office  of  the  Anointed  One,  of  whom  those  formerly 
anointed  had  been  but  the  types  and  foreshadowers. 
And  as  this  unction  was  the  outward  and  visible  s?gn  or 
sacrament  of  which  the  Holy  Spirit  was  the  invisible 
reality,  so  the  Christ,  Whose  office  was  the  reality  pre- 
signified  by  those  who  were  anointed  with  the  material 
unction,  receives  the  reality  of  this  sign  in  the  actual 
gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  for  the  work  of  His  office. f 

By  the  power  of  the  Spirit  our  Lord  is  said  to  have 
been  led  into  the  wilderness  to  endure  temptation  ;  J  to 
have  taught,  and  preached  the  Gospel ;  §  to  have  offered 
himself  unto  God  ;  ||  to  have  risen  from  the  dead  ;  1  and 
to  the  same  Spirit  must  be  attributed  that  grace  which 
He,  receiving  it  upon  His  Ascension,  gave  measurably  to 
His  Church,  both  for  the  work  of  the  ministry  and  for 
the  perfecting  of  the  saints.** 

In  like  manner  Apostles  are  said,  for  example,  to 
preach,  being  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost ;  ft  to  be  wit- 
nesses with  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  JJ  to  determine  rules  of 

*St.  Luke  i.  35.  f  St.  Matt.  iii.  16,  17.  \  St.  Matt.  iv.  i. 

§St.  Luke  iv.  14,  15,  17,  18.         j|  Heb.  ix.  14.         If  Rom.  viii.  n. 
**  Eph.  iv.  4-13.  ft  Acts  iv.  8.  \\  Acts  v.  32. 


64  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

conduct  in  accord  with  Him ;  *  to  be  instrumental  in  the 
communication  of  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  f  and  to  separate 
the  unworthy  from  the  communion  of  the  Church  by  the 
power  of  their  possession  of  Him:  J  all  of  which  instances 
imply  what  no  one,  in  view  of  the  promise  of  Christ,  will 
"doubt,  that  what  the  Apostles  did  in  their  ministry  was 
done  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit. § 

In  extension  of  this  parallel  it  is  further  to  be  noted 
that  neither  our  Lord  nor  His  Apostles  were  at  once 
instated  in  the  full  power  of  their  respective  offices,  but 
were  thereto  advanced  by  several  and  correspondent 
degrees. 

Our  Lord,  in  the  first  period  of  His  official  life,  appears 
to  have  been  limited  in  the  exercise  of  His  power,  both 
in  respect  to  His  acts  and  to  the  sphere  of  His  action. 
He  preached,  and  gathered  disciples  whom  He  admitted 
to  membership  in  His  Church  ;  and  He  appointed  min- 
isters to  fulfil  His  will  in  the  discharge  of  His  mission, 
although  these,  of  course,  were  restrained  within  limita- 
tions corresponding  to  His  own.  He  confined  His  min- 
istrations entirely  to  the  Jews,  declaring  that  he  was  not 
sent  but  unto  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel. ||  In 
like  manner  the  Apostles  whom  He  appointed  in  this 
stage  of  His  ministry  performed  similar  functions  within 
the  same  range.  They  carried  the  Gospel  of  the  King- 
dom to  those  to  whom  they  were  sent,  being  expressly 
restrained  from  ministering  to  Gentiles,  or  even  in  any 
city  of  the  Samaritans  ;  ^  and  they  performed  the  func- 


*  Acts  xv.  28.  \  Acts  viii.  14-17;  xix.  1-6. 

\  I  Cor.  v.  4  (where  "My  Spirit"  seems  to  be  equivalent  to 
"the  Spirit  which  I  have  received  from  Christ."  Cf.  St.  John  xx. 
22,  23).  §  St.  John  xiv.  16,  17.  26. 

|  St.  Matt.  xv.  24.  TJ"  St.  Matt.  x.  5-7. 


POWERS  OF  MINISTRY.  65 

tion  of  baptism,  acting  for  their  Master.  That  baptism 
was  used  at  this  early  period  of  the  Christian  organization, 
and,  presumably,  with  the  same  general  purpose,  if  not 
in  the  same  form,  as  provided  in  the  parting  commission 
of  our  Lord  (St.  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20),  appears  from 
the  distinct  statement  of  St.  John,  that  Jesus  and  His 
Disciples  coming  into  the  land  of  Judsea  tarried  there  and 
baptized,  *  John  also  at  the  same  time  baptizing  in 
y£non  ;  and  that  this  function  of  the  ministry  was  at  this 
period  exercised  by  the  Apostles,  as  well  as  by  our  Lord 
Himself,  appears  from  the  further  statement  that  Jesus 
continued  to  baptize  :  "  Though  Jesus  Himself  baptized 
not,  but  His  Disciples."  f  Whether  the  Apostles  them- 
selves were  baptized  by  our  Lord,  or,  like  our  Lord  Him- 
self, by  the  Baptist,  are  questions  which  it  is  easier  to  ask 
than  to  answer  from  the  Scriptures.  So  far  as  the  record 
is  concerned,  there  appears  to  be  no  evidence  by  which 
they  may  be  settled.  The  continuance  of  John's  baptism 
after  the  beginning  of  .that  of  our  Lord,  and  the  fact  that 
certain  of  the  Apostles  had  been  among  the  disciples  of 
John,  make  it  possible  that  they  were  by  him  baptized. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  preparatory  nature  of  John's 
work,  and  the  fact  that  at  a  later  period  some  who  had 
already  received  John's  baptism  were  required  to  receive 
the  Christian  baptism, \  certainly  strengthen  the  pre- 
cedent probability  that  Jesus,  as  the  Founder  of  the 
Christian  kingdom,  instituting  a  baptism  of  His  own, 
would  subject  to  it  all  who  desired  to  become  His 
followers,  and  especially  those  whom  He  appointed  as 


*  St.  John  iii.  22. 

f  St.  John  iv.  1-4.  Cf.  St.  Paul's  statement  that  Christ  sent  him 
not  to  baptize;  i.e.,  not  generally,  as  he  was  chiefly  engrossed  in 
higher  functions.  (l  Cor.  i.  12-17.)  $  Acts  xix.  1-6. 

5 


66  ECCLESIAS7ICAL   POLITY. 

His  subordinate  officers  in  that  kingdom.  However  this 
point  may  be  determined — which  is  perhaps  of  greater 
interest  than  importance,  in  view  of  the  constraining 
probability — it  is  evident  that  at  this  stage  of  their 
progress  the  Apostles  had  been  admitted  by  our  Lord 
to  such  a  share  of  the  power  exercised  by  Himself,  within 
the  circuit  of  a  limited  jurisdiction,  as  authorized  them 
to  preach  and  baptize. 

At  a  later  period,  toward  the  close  of  our  Lord's 
earthly  ministry,  we  find  a  change  of  very  great  impor- 
tance, affecting  His  own  power  and  mission,  and,  pro- 
portionably,  the  power  and  mission  of  the  Apostles. 
Jesus,  returning  in  triumph  from  the  grave,  declares 
Himself,  in  contrast  with  His  former  position,  endued 
with  all  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  and  accordingly 
extends  the  mission  of  His  Apostles  throughout  the 
world,  and  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world.*  Thus 
we  find  the  Apostles  admitted  to  such  a  share  of  the 
power  of  our  Lord  as  authorized  them  to  preach  and 
baptize  within  the  circuit  of  His  now  unlimited  juris- 
diction. And  further  extension  of  their  authority  we 
find  at  this  stage,  correspondent  with  the  enlargement 
of  the  authority  of  their  Master,  and  such  as  reaches 
beyond  the  range  of  a  functional  duty,  out  into  the 
higher  and  larger  scope  of  rule  and  government  involv- 
ing oversight  and  direction.  This  authority  may  be 
inferred  partly  from  the  language  of  the  commission 
contained  in  the  text  referred  to,  to  teach  all  things 
whatsoever  had  been  commanded  them;  \  partly  from  the 
bestowal  upon  them  within  this  period  of  the  power  of 
binding  and  loosing,  a  distinct  power  of  government ;  j 


*  St.  Matt,  xxviii.  19,  20.         f  Acts,  i.  I.          \  St.  John,  xx.  21-23. 


POWERS  OF  MINISTRY.  67 

and  partly  from  the  relation  in  which  they  had  all  along 
stood  to  our  Lord,  as  those  who  were  appointed  to 
succeed  Him  in  the  outward  ministrations  which  per- 
tained to  His  kingly  office.  In  one  sense,  indeed,  our 
Lord  has  no  successor,  in  that,  being  not  like  earthly 
kings  subject  to  mortality,  He  abideth  ever  in  the  Head- 
ship of  His  Divine  kingdom  ;  and,  in  another  sense,  our 
Lord's  proper  successor  in  the  ministration  of  this  king- 
dom is  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  true  Vicar  of  Christ  on 
earth  ;  but,  yet,  in  still  another  sense,  the  succession  to 
Christ  of  an  outward  and  visible  Ministry  is  manifest  in 
the  Apostles,  whose  authority  in  regard  to  the  order  and 
conduct  of  His  Church,  and  the  extension  and  perpetua- 
tion of  the  faith  of  His  Gospel,  was  such  as  to  put  them, 
in  all  outward  relations  with  His  people,  in  the  same 
place  which  He  had  held  while  on  earth,  and  must  have 
continued  to  hold  had  He  remained  on  earth  :  which 
appears  to  have  been  what  was  meant  by  His  appointing 
unto  them  a  kingdom,  as  His  Father  had  appointed  unto 
Him.* 

In  these  two  periods  of  the  official  life  of  the  Apostles 
there  seems  to  be  no  difficulty  in  tracing  not  only  a 
parallel  between  similar  periods  in  the  life  of  our  Lord, 
but  also  a  parallel  in  those  two  orders  of  the  Christian 
Ministry  which  the  Church  afterward  designated  as  the 
Diaconate  and  the  Episcopate  :  the  one  a  degree  of 
preparation  and  training,  at  the  same  time  involving 
ordinarily  the  functions  of  preaching  and  baptizing,  as 
well  as  others  ;  the  other  involving  the  full  possession  of 
the  ordinary  official  authority  of  the  Apostles  for  the 
exercise  of  all  the  power  conferred  upon  the  Ministry  in 


*  St.  Luke,  xxii.  29,  30. 


68  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

its  relation  to  the  people,  and  the  additional  power  of 
perpetuating  that  Ministry. 

But  the  parallel  would  lack  a  most  important  signifi- 
cance if  it  furnished  no  counterpart  to  the  order  of 
Priesthood,  which,  in  the  history  of  the  Church,  has  been 
always  intermediate  between  the  Diaconate  and  the  Epis- 
copate ;  and  if  the  Church  has  been  right  in  assuming 
that  the  work  of  the  Apostolic  ministry  of  Christ's  institu- 
tion necessarily  involved  the  provision  of  a  priestly  order 
for  the  full  accomplishment  of  the  object  of  that  min- 
istry, it  would  seem  to  be  at  least  probable  that  we  should 
find  something  correspondent  to  this  function  in  the  pro- 
vision of  Christ  Himself.  And  the  expectation  is  fully 
realized  in  the  commission  given  by  our  Lord  to  His 
Apostles,  on  the  night  in  which  He  was  betrayed,  to 
commemorate  and  represent  the  sacrifice  which,  in  the 
use  of  bread  and  wine  at  the  Paschal  Supper,  He  then 
made  of  Himself.  That  this  action  of  our  Lord  was 
properly  sacrificial,  is  indicated  (i)  by  the  conformity  of 
it  to  the  precedent  type  of  the  Passover  which  He  was 
then  fulfilling,  as  "the  Lamb  slain  from  the  foundation 
of  the  world,"  and  prefigured  by  the  Mosaic  sacrifice  ; 
(2)  by  the  terms  of  the  time  present  which  He  uses  in 
the  performance  of  the  action,  saying :  "  My  body  which 
is  given  for  you  ;  My  blood  which  is  shed  for  you  ;  "  * 
and  (3)  by  the  voluntary  character  which  He  Himself 
attributed  to  the  devotion  of  His  life  to  that  end  for 
which  He  had  assumed  it,  saying  :  "  I  lay  down  my  life, 
that  I  might  take  it  again.  No  man  taketh  it  from  me, 
but  I  lay  it  down  of  myself.  I  have  power  to  lay  it 
down,  and  I  have  po\ver  to  take  it  again  "  f — all  the 


*  St.  Luke,  xxii.  19,  20.  f  St.  John,  x.  17,  18. 


POWERS  OF  MINISTRY.  69 

subsequent  proceedings  resulting  in  His  death  upon  the 
Cross  having  been  involuntary,  and  by  the  violence  of 
others,  which  He  passively  endured.*  And  since  the 
Apostles  in  that  action  received  His  commission  to  do  in 
commemoration  of  Him  those  acts  which  He  then  did,  if 
His  action  was  sacrificial,  that  function  which  He  then 
committed  to  them  was  also  sacrificial,  and  by  the  like 
necessity  implies  the  reception  by  them  of  the  power  to 
execute  the  priestly  office. 

It  is  true,  indeed,  that  in  regard  to  the  evidence  of  our 
Lord's  advancement  to  the  priestly  office,  there  appears 
something  wanting  in  order  to  the  perfection  of  this 
parallel,  forasmuch  as  there  can  be  no  passage  adduced 
which  expressly  points  out  the  time  of  any  such  advance- 
ment prior  to  this  apparent  exercise  of  the  priestly  func- 
tion, whereas  the  study  of  the  passages  relating  to  our 
Lord's  consecration  as  a  priest  seems  to  make  evident  the 
conclusion  that  this  was  not  accomplished  until  a  later 
day.  So  that  unless  we  will  grant  what,  as  Dean  Jackson 
remarks,  "  many  modern  divines  out  of  incogitancy  have 
taught,  or  taken  upon  trust  without  further  examination, 
to  wit,  that  the  eternal  Son  of  God,  our  Lord  and 
Saviour,  was  a  high  priest  from  eternity,  or  a  high  priest 
from  His  birth  as  man,  or  from  His  baptism,  when 
He  was  anointed  by  the  Holy  Ghost  unto  His  prophet- 
ical function,"  f  we  appear  to  be  inconsistent  in  claiming 
for  our  Lord  the  priestly  character  at  the  time  of  the 
oblation  at  the  Paschal  Supper ;  and  the  inconsistency 
would  be  equally  apparent  if  we  referred  the  sacrifice  of 


*  Bishop   Seabury's  sermon  on  the  Eucharist  should  be  read  in 
this  connection  :   "  Discourses,"  vol.  i. 
\  Jackson's  Works,  vol.  xii.  p.  214. 


7&  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

Christ  not  to  this  oblation,  but  to  His  actual  crucifixion, 
as  probably  Jackson  would  do. 

"  The  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God  upon  the  Cross,"  he 
observes,  ..."  was  the  absolute  accomplishment 
of  all  legal  sacrifices  or  services  Aaronical.  And  yet  but 
an  intermediate  (though  an  especial)  part  of  His  conse- 
cration to  the  priesthood  after  the  order  of  Melchisedec, 
not  the  ultimum  esse,  or  accomplishment  of  it  :  it  was  not 
terminated  till  the  day  of  His  resurrection  from  the 
dead  ;  .  .  .  and  from  this  day,  and  not  before,  doth 
His  endless,  everlasting  priesthood  commence.  And 
being  thus  actually  consecrated  *  by  His  resurrection 
from  the  dead — that  is,  made  both  Lord  and  Christ — 
He  is  become  the  author  of  everlasting  salvation."  f 

In  like  manner  the  learned  Outram,  maintaining  that 
there  are  three  things  required  to  constitute  a  priest  ab- 
solutely perfect  :  (i)  sufficient  authority  and  favor  with 
God  to  render  Him  propitious ;  (2)  sufficient  kindness  and 
mercy  toward  men  ;  (3)  an  immortal  life  to  be  capable 
of  the  perpetual  performance  of  his  function  ;  and  apply- 
ing these  requirements  to  our  Lord  (Heb.  v.  i,  2  ;  ii.  17  ; 
vii.  24-28),  attributes  His  consecration,  or  being  made 
perfect  (Tsheioadeis),  to  His  resurrection  :  "  Whence  we 
conclude  that  it  was  on  his  resurrection  from  the  dead  to 
an  immortal  life  that  the  Son  of  God  was  fully  conse- 
crated to  the  perpetual  priesthood."  J 

Yet,  although  this  be  true,  it  by  no  means  excludes  the 
exercise  of  any  priestly  power  by  our  Lord  before  the 
completion  or  accomplishment  of  His  consecration  by 
His  resurrection,  which  to  hold  would  be  to  exclude  His 
own  sacrifice  of  Himself  whensoever  actually  made.  We 


*  T£\£ia)f>£i?,  Heb.  v.  9.  f  Jackson,  ut  sup.,  p.  215. 

\  Outram  :  "  On  Sacrifices,"  Diss.  II.  C.  I.  iv. 


POWERS  OF  MINISTRY.  7 1 

are,  therefore,  obliged  to  conclude  that  our  Lord  did,  by 
an  anticipation  of  the  fulness  of  His  power,  perform  that 
which  belonged  to  it  at  the  time  when  that  performance 
was  essentially  necessary,  /'.<?.,  before  His  death.  And 
the  apparent  difficulty  is  removed  by  the  reflection  that 
His  consecration  was  a  process  rather  than  a  single  act, 
so  that  what  was  completed  or  accomplished  in  His 
resurrection  was  in  fact  in  the  course  of  accomplishment 
before — certainly  as  long  before  as  when  in  the  discourse 
at  the  Last  Supper  He  said  :  "  syco  ayia.8,00  fj^avrov  " 
("  I  sanctify  myself  ")  ;  and  prayed  for  His  Apostles  : 
"  dyiaffov  avrovS  "  '^sanctify  them  ").  For,  as  Jackson 
well  puts  it  in  answer  to  a  proposed  dilemma  in  a  Jewish 
argument  :  "  Betwixt  a  priest  complete,  or  actually  conse- 
crated, and  no  priest  at  all  (datur  medium  participationis), 
there  is  a  mean  or  third  estate  or  condition  ;  to  wit,  a 
priest  in  fieri,  though  not  in  facto,  or  a  priest  inter  conse- 
crandum,  that  is,  in  the  interims  of  his  consecration, 
before  he  be  actually  and  completely  consecrated.  Such 
a  man,  or,  rather,  such  a  priest,  was  Aaron  during  the  first 
six  or  seven  days  of  his  consecration,  yet  dare  no  Jew 
avouch  that  after  the  first  or  second  day  of  his  separa- 
tion from  common  men  he  was  no  more  than  an  ordinary 
man,  no  priest  at  all,  nor  that  on  the  seventh  day  he  was 
a  priest  actually  consecrated,  but  as  yet  in  his  consecra- 
tion. He  was  not  till  the  eighth  day  qualified  to  offer  up 
sacrifices  unto  God,  but  had  peculiar  sacrifices  offered  for 
his  consecration  by  Moses  :  "  *  which  sacrifices  attendant 
upon  consecration,  as  they  could  not  in  the  consecration 
of  Christ  be  offered  by  any  man  (no  man  being  thereunto 
empowered),  must  needs  be  offered  by  the  Christ  as  a 


*  Jackson  ut  supr.,  xii.  p.  214. 


72  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

part  of  the  Divinely  appointed  process  whereby  He  sanc- 
tified Himself. 

And  the  same  conclusion  is  applicable  to  the  acts  of 
our  Lord  in  exercising  and  collating  (in  any  respect) 
upon  His  Apostles  an  authority  which  belonged  to  Him 
in  perfection  upon  His  Ascension.  At  this  time  He 
attains  the  fulness  of  His  royal  power,  and  receives  "  gifts 
for  men."  Yet  He  declares  of  Himself  upon  His  res- 
urrection, that  "  all  power  is  given  unto  Him  in  heaven 
and  in  earth,"  and  before  His  Ascension  He  confers  the 
fullest  authority  upon  His  Apostles,  manifestly  by  way 
of  anticipation,  and  because  then,  during  the  time  of  His 
earthly  intercourse  with  them,  was  the  proper  time 
to  confer  such  authority,  making  the  commission  de- 
pendent for  its  fulfilment  upon  the  power  with  which, 
after  His  Ascension,  they  should  be  endued  from  on 
high. 

The  institution  then,  by  Divine  appointment,  of  a 
visible  Ministry  to  continue  in  the  Church  of  Christ's 
foundation  the  exercise  of  those  functions  which  were 
included  in  His  office,  and  which  were  needful  for  the 
Church  as  well  after  as  before  the  departure  of  Christ ; 
and  the  general  conformity  of  the  functions  of  this 
Apostolic  Ministry  both  to  those  of  the  ministry  of  Christ 
out  of  which  it  grew,  and  to  those  which,  in  accordance 
with  Apostolic  arrangement,  the  Ministry  of  the  Church 
subsequently  exercised,  appear  to  be  sufficiently  plain.* 
That  the  powers  exercised  personally  by  Christ,  and  by 
the  Apostles  acquired  from  His  personal  commission, 
should  have  been  fully  attained  by  several  degrees,  and 
that  the  Apostles  in  their  arrangement  of  a  permanent 

*  Cf.  Arch  Bishop  Potter's  "  Discourse  of  Church  Government," 
ch.  ii..  iii. 


POWERS  OF  MINISTRY.  73 

order  for  the  Church  should  have  made  provision  for  the 
distribution  of  the  powers  attendant  upon  these  several 
degrees  into  several  grades  or  departments  of  ministerial 
duty,  attaining  the  same  end  in  a  different  way,  is  only 
what  one  might  expect  to  observe  in  comparing  a  forma- 
tive period  like  that  of  our  Lord  and  His  Apostles  with 
the  settled  order  pertaining  to  the  Church  fully  estab- 
lished. By  degrees  our  Lord  certainly  attained  to  the 
fulness  of  His  official  power  ;  by  like  degrees  He  cer- 
tainly advanced  His  Apostles  to  the  fulness  of  Apostolic 
authority,  and  from  them  came  that  distribution  which 
involved,  ordinarily,  the  same  process  of  preparation  and 
advancement  by  degrees  of  each  individual  who  should 
attain  to  the  fulness  of  ministerial  authority  in  the 
Church  ;  the  powers  lodged  by  Christ  in  the  Apostolic 
or  Episcopal  office  having  been  by  the  first  holders  of 
that  office  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  retained 
in  fulness  in  their  own  order,  and  in  measure  and  degree 
imparted  to  two  orders  of  the  Ministry  inferior  to  their 
own. 

The  distribution  of  these  powers,  however,  appears  to 
be  not  a  strict  and  exact  division  of  the  three  kinds  of 
power  between  the  three  offices  of  Bishop,  Priest,  and 
Deacon,  so  that  to  the  first  order  should  pertain  the 
royal,  to  the  second  order  the  priestly,  and  to  the  third 
the  prophetic,  although  in  a  general  way  it  is  to  be  said 
that  there  is  a  correspondence  between  the  three  orders 
and  the  three  kinds  of  power.  But  it  rather  appears  that 
the  powers  which  Christ  bestowed  upon  the  Apostolic 
office  correspondent  to  His  own  have  been  diffused 
amongst  the  three  orders,  each  one  having  special  func- 
tions, yet  each  in  a  manner  sharing  the  powers  of  the 
others — even  the  Deacon  not  being  wholly  excluded 


74  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

from  participation  in  the  power  of  government,  nor  the 
Priest  from  the  power  of  prophecy,  but  the  entirety 
of  the  threefold  power  pertaining  only  to  the  Episco- 
pate. 

This  distribution  of  powers  of  different  kinds  through- 
out the  three  orders  makes  it  permissible,  as  indeed  it  is 
sometimes  unavoidable,  to  speak  of  the  ministry,  the 
priesthood,  the  government,  which  Christ  has  established 
in  His  Church.  But  to  say  that  there  is  one  ministry, 
priesthood,  and  government,  is  not  the  same  as  to  say  that 
there  is  but  one  order  ;  for  the  distribution  of  power  into 
three  distinct  offices  involves  the  distinction  of  order,  so 
that  these  three  distinct  offices  are  three  distinct  orders. 

To  say  that  only  one  kind  of  power  constitutes  the 
power  of  order,  is  to  attach  to  the  word  "  order"  a  purely 
technical  signification,  and  to  impose  upon  it  a  limitation 
contrary  to  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Divine 
constitution  of  the  ministry,  and  unknown  in  the  language 
of  the  primitive  Church. 

The  principle  that  the  power  of  the  priesthood,  being 
that  to  which  the  second  order  is  admitted,  is  the  only 
power  of  order,  involves  the  consequence  that  the  Bishops 
possess  no  greater  power,  as  power  of  order,  than  the 
Priests.  And  if  this  principle  be  taken  in  connection 
with  the  principle  of  the  indelibility  of  order,  it  results 
that  the  Priests  alone  have  by  their  ordination  an  indelible 
character,  while  the  Bishops,  in  respect  to  the  added  powers 
of  the  Episcopate,  have  no  such  immunity.  This  is  prac- 
tically to  make  only  one  order  essential  and  permanent  (the 
Deacon  being  easily  regarded  as  a  mere  aid  to  the  Priest), 
and  to  leave  other  orders  unessential  and  mutable  ;  and 
it  is  not  difficult  to  observe  the  process  by  which  this 
error,  the  fruit  of  a  scholastic  fancy,  has  helped  to  build 


POWERS  OF  MINISTRY.  75 

up  the  equally  false,  though  antagonistic,  systems  of  the 
Papacy*  and  Presbyterianism. 

The  added  Episcopal  power  being  called  jurisdiction, 
and  the  Pope  being  regarded  as  the  fountain  of  all  juris- 
diction, and  the  power  of  jurisdiction  being  not  a  part 
of  the  indelible  power  of  order,  the  power  of  the  Pope 
over  the  Bishops  becomes  despotic,  they  being  merely  his 
creatures  and  dependents.  And  the  idea  that  there  is  no 
distinction  of  order  between  Priests  and  Bishops,  being 
so  embedded  as  it  was  in  the  minds  of  men  at  the  time 
of  the  Reformation,  made  the  Presbyterian  scheme  plaus- 
ible after  the  supremacy  of  the  Pope  had  been  thrown 
off.  There  seemed,  by  and  by,  to  some,  to  be  no  neces- 
sity for  Bishops,  supposing  that  all  Priests  had  the  whole 
power  of  order  ;  and  as  to  jurisdiction,  since  it  was  easy 
to  disprove  the  claim  of  the  Pope  to  universal  jurisdic- 
tion jure  Divino,  they  were  content  that  the  Priests 
should  supply  it  for  themselves,  or  that  they  should  take 
it  from  the  civil  power. 

Great  confusion  has  grown  out  of  this  misapprehen- 
sion. The  difficulties  are  only  cleared  away,  and  the 


*  Orders  in  the  Church,  according  to  the  Roman  teaching,  are 
those  of  Porters,  Readers,  Exorcists.  Acolytes,  sub-Deacons,  Dea- 
cons, and  Priests.  —  "Catechism,  Council  of  Trent,"  p.  216. 

The  Order  of  Priesthood,  they  say,  though  essentially  one,  has 
different  degrees  of  dignity  and  power,  including,  first,  those  who 
are  simply  Priests  with  the  functions  of  consecration  and  absolution  ; 
second,  Bishops,  called  also  Pontiffs,  who  are  placed  over  their 
respective  Sees  to  govern  not  only  other  ministers,  but  the  faithful  ; 
third,  Archbishops ;  fourth,  Patriarchs  ;  fifth,  the  Sovereign  Pontiff, 
the  Pope,  in  whose  person  "the  Catholic  Church  "  recognizes  the 
most  exalted  degree  of  dignity,  and  the  full  amplitude  of  jurisdic- 
tion, emanating  from  no  human  constitution,  but  from  God  Himself. 
— 16.,  221,  222. 


?6  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

false  principle  held  in  common  but  variously  perverted 
by  Papists  and  Presbyterians  is  only  corrected  by  the 
primitive  idea  of  the  supreme  coordinate  power  of  the 
Bishops  as  the  only  possessors  of  the  full  powers  of  min- 
istry, priesthood,  and  government  in  the  Church,  Presby- 
ters and  Deacons  being  admitted  to  their  several  and 
limited  shares  thereof. 

The  scholastic  distinction  between  order  and  jurisdic- 
tion is  not  the  primitive  distinction  between  the  power  of 
order  and  the  lawful  right  to  use  that  power,  but  a  fanci- 
ful distinction  between  the  power  of  making  the  Corpus 
Christi  verum  and  the  power  of  ruling  the  Corpus  Christi 
mysticum^  the  former  being  accounted  the  proper  power 
of  order,  the  latter  only  an  addition  or  appendage  to  it. 

This  distinction  is  well  stated  by  the  learned  Dr. 
Nathaniel  Marshall  in  his  treatise  on  the  ecclesiastical 
and  civil  powers,  as  will  appear  from  the  following  con- 
densation of  the  first  few  sections  of  his  work  : 

The  Bishops  in  the  Council  of  Trent,  of  the  Pope's 
then  immediate  creation,  who  had  as  his  creatures  their 
titles  from  his  prerogative  (many  such  titulars  having 
been  in  that  council),  appeared  very  unwilling  to  declare 
in  it  for  the  Divine,  immutable  right  of  that  order  which 
they  then  laid  claim  to,  sitting  in  the  synod  by  virtue  of 
it,  because  in  so  doing  they  would  have  given  his  universal 
monarchy  and  pastorship  an  irremediable  disadvantage  ; 
not  only  by  setting  up  a  monarch  in  each  district  inde- 
pendent on  that  one  Pastor,  but  so  far  on  a  level  with  him 
also  as  to  be  equally  immutable  as  to  his  own  order  and 
station  in  the  Church. 

The  Romish  doctors  made  it  their  business  to  bring 
down  the  Episcopal  order  and  level  it  with  the  Presby- 
terial,  subjecting  the  whole  power  of  the  priesthood 


POWERS  OF  MINISTRY.  77 

alike  in  each  ;  and  the  same  authority  and  office  that 
they  allow  the  Bishop  to  have  and  execute  by  his  priestly 
order  as  a  Sacrament,  which  is  to  make  the  Corpus 
Christi  verum,  or  transubstantiate,  is  seated  by  them  in 
the  Presbyter  as  a  Sacrament.  And  that  power  and 
office  which  the  Bishop  hath  besides,  and  the  Presbyter 
hath  not,  to  wit,  in  the  government  of  the  Corpus  Christi 
mysticum,  i.e.,  of  Christ's  mystical  Body,  the  Church,  is 
not  from  the  Sacrament  of  Order,  but  subordinate  to  it. 
And  as  the  order,  so  the  power  being  common  to  each, 
what  is  that  that  is  left  which  the  Presbyter  may  not  do 
also  by  virtue  of  his  order  of  Priesthood  ?  And  having 
found  out  this  device,  the  Schoolmen's  novel  doctrine, 
which  equalizes  the  Presbyter  with  the  Bishop,  was  then, 
and  is  at  this  day,  received  with  greater  plausibility 
among  the  Papal  dependents  ;  and  it  is  generally  dis- 
puted and  maintained  by  them  that  the  Bishop  receives 
no  power  nor  character  of  order  as  a  Sacrament,  by  his 
consecration,  which  'he  did  not  receive  when  he  was 
ordained  a  Presbyter. 

The  case  being  thus  stated  and  received  by  the 
Schoolmen,  the  Bishop's  power  of  order,  as  such,  fixes  in 
him  no  immutable  station,  whereas  his  power  of  order  as 
a  Presbyter  does,  and  in  this  respect  the  Bishop  and 
the  Presbyter  are  by  them  reputed  equal.  It  is  on  this 
bottom  that  Rome's  universal  Pastorship  and  supremacy 
treads  on  the  necks  of  the  Bishops  of  Christendom  at  its 
pleasure  ;  constitutes,  deprives,  and  suspends  them  at  its 
discretion  (whereas  the  Presbyter's  power  of  orders  can- 
not be  taken  away  from  him) ;  vests  with  plenary  dele- 
gations Archpresbyters  in  fixed  dioceses,  and  makes  his 
Presbyter  Cardinals,  nay,  Deacon  Cardinals,  his  legates  a 
latere,  and  the  Bishops  stand  by  as  ciphers  there  ;  nay, 


7§  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

more  insignificant,  and  as  such  are  qualified  for  no  one 
clerical,  hierarchical  action  which  is  not  communicable 
to,  and  actually  collated  on,  those  two  orders  of  Presby- 
ters and  Deacons  by  Papal  delegations.* 

But  to  take  a  further  view  of  the  Schoolmen's,  and,  it 
may  be  added,  Canonist's,  scheme.  What  though  the 
Presbyter  hath  the  same  power  to  transubstantiate  which 
the  Bishop  hath  ?  Since  the  Roman  advocates  own  that, 
besides  that  order  in  which  the  Presbyter  is  equal  with 
him,  the  Diocesan  Bishop  has  an  order  (as  they  some- 
times speak)  in  respect  of  Christ's  mystical  Body,  apart 
from  the  order  which  he  receives  by  virtue  of  the  priest- 
hood, why  may  not  the  Bishop  receive  that  qualifying 
power  by  an  immutable,  Divine,  and  indefeasible  right  ? 
Surely  he  may  do  it  on  as  good  grounds  as  the  Pope  may 
receive  his  pretended  universal  Pastorship  by  Divine  and 
immutable  right,  which  is  not  alleged  to  be  received  by 
virtue  of  the  power  of  the  priesthood  in  the  Sacrament  of 
Order.  Why  may  not  the  power  over  the  mystical  Body 
be  the  Bishop's  peculium  ?  Why  may  he  not  be  supe- 
rior herein,  and  execute  it  on  the  Presbyter,  though  the 
Presbyter  can  transubstantiate  ?  How,  otherwise,  comes 
the  Pope  to  be  (we  say  not  the  Bishop's,  but)  the  Pres- 
byter's, superior,  since  the  Pope  has  not  more  right  than 
either  of  these  over  the  Corpus  Christi  verum  ?  His 
Holiness  pleads  a  superior  power  to  the  potestas  or  dims, 
as  they  speak,  i.e.,  to  the  power  of  transubstantiating,  by 
which  he  was  made  supreme  and  universal  Rector  of  the 
Christian  world.  And  why  may  not  the  single  Bishop 
plead  \i\%  potestatem  jurisdictionis  as  an  indefeasible  right, 

*  That  these  considerations  are  not  wholly  antiquated  and  obso- 
lete, may  perhaps  be  inferred  from  the  recent  experiences  of  certain 
Roman  prelates  in  this  country, 


POWERS  OF  MINISTRY.  79 

over  and  above  the  power  which  he,  as  well  as  the  Pope, 
received  with  his  Presbyter's  ordination  ? 

And  there  are  some  even  among  ourselves  who  do  not 
assert  the  Pope's  supremacy  nor  the  Presbyter's  transub- 
stantiating power,  but  professedly  oppose  each  of  them  ; 
and  yet  they  plough  with  the  Pope's  heifer,  in  making 
use  of  his  parasites  and  sworn  defenders,  the  Canonists 
and  Schoolmen,  thereby  to  recommend  to  mankind  the 
parity  of  the  Presbyters  and  Bishops.  And  as  that 
power  which  the  Bishop  has  undeniably  been  found  to 
be  vested  with,  beyond  the  Presbyter,  is  alienable  by  the 
Pope,  as  his  adherents  say,  so  is  it  alienable  by  the  Pres- 
bytery and  secular  hand,  as  our  now  moderate  Episco- 
parians  teach.  And  is  it  not  very  odd,  when  we  find  Dr. 
Field,  to  name  no  more  at  present,  in  his  third  and  fifth 
books  Of  The  Church,  to  produce  no  less  than  seven  of 
the  Schoolmen  in  justification  of  the  Bishops'  and  Pres- 
byters' equality  by  their  orders,  and  the  mutability  of 
Episcopacy,  which  these  Romanists  had  started  and  car- 
ried on,  by  wire  drawings  and  drilling  arguments,  there- 
with to  support  the  Pope's  supremacy  ?  Surely  Dr. 
Field  and  his  company  did  not  consider  that  whatever 
authority  the  Schoolmen  have,  their  argument  does  alike 
conduce  to  the  setting  up  of  the  Pope's,  as  to  the  pulling 
down  of  the  Bishop's,  superiority.  And  if  Dr.  Field's 
platform  of  hierarchy  holds,  and  the  secular  magistrate's 
fixing  one  Presbyter  over  others  in  a  diocese  gives  him  a 
superiority  of  government  over  them,  nothing  needs  be 
more  plain  than  that  the  Bishop's  continuance  in  his  Pre- 
lated  station  is  solely  at  the  will  of  the  Prince. 


8o  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 


PROPOSITION   XII. 

As  the  Church,  although  one  from  the  beginning,  has  existed 
under  several  dispensations,  so  the  Ministry  of  Divine 
appointment  has  been  of  several  forms. 

IN  the  history  of  the  form  of  Church  government,  as 
shown  by  the  Divine  constitution  of  the  Ministry,  there 
are  three  divisions,  corresponding  with  the  Patriarchal, 
Mosaic,  and  Christian  dispensations. 

i.  In  the  Patriarchal  dispensation,  men  exercised  the 
ministry  as  a  function  of  the  headship  of  the  family : 
the  succession  being  by  inheritance,  ordinarily  in  the 
line  of  the  eldest  son. 

The  evidence  derived  from  comparative  jurisprudence, 
says  Professor  Dwight  in  his  introduction  to  Sir  Henry 
Maine's  treatise  on  "  Ancient  Law,"  "  establishes  that  view 
of  the  race  which  is  known  as  the  PATRIARCHAL  THEORY. 
This  theory  is  based  on  the  Scriptural  history  of  the 
Hebrew  Patriarchs.  All  known  societies  were  originally 
organized  on  this  model.  The  eldest  male  parent  is 
absolutely  supreme  in  his  household.  His  dominion 
extends  to  life  and  death,  and  is  as  unqualified  over  his 
children  as  over  his  slaves.  .  .  .  When  society  came 
to  be  formed,  it  was  not,  as  now,  a  collection  of  indi- 
viduals, but  an  aggregation  of  families.  The  unit  of 
an  ancient  society  was  the  family."*  And  Sir  Henry 
Maine  observes  that  in  early  law,  and  amid  the  rudiments 
of  political  thought,  symptoms  of  the  belief  of  a  Divine 
influence  underlying  and  supporting  every  relation  of 


FORM  OF  MINISTRY.  81 

life,  and  every  social  institution,  meet  us  on  all  sides. 
"  A  supernatural  presidency  is  supposed  to  consecrate 
and  keep  together  all  the  cardinal  institutions  of  those 
times,  the  State,  the  Race,  and  the  Family.  These 
grouped  together  in  the  different  relations  which  those 
institutions  imply,  are  bound  to  celebrate  periodically 
common  rites,  and  to  offer  common  sacrifices.  .  .  . 
Everybody  acquainted  with  ordinary  classical  literature 
will  remember  the  sacra  gentilicia,  which  exercised  so 
important  an  influence  on  the  early  Roman  law  of 
adoption  and  of  wills.  And  to  this  hour  the  Hindoo 
Customary  Law,  in  which  some  of  the  most  curious 
features  of  primitive  society  are  stereotyped,  makes 
almost  all  the  rights  of  persons,  and  all  the  rules  of 
succession,  hinge  on  the  due  solemnization  of  fixed 
ceremonies  at  the  dead  man's  funeral  ;  that  is,  at  every 
point  where  a  breach  occurs  in  the  continuity  of  the 
family."  * 

To  the  same  effect  Dean  Jackson  long  ago  remarked 
that  "the  regal  power,  which  in  process  of  time  did 
spread  itself  over  whole  nations  and  countries,  had  its  first 
root  from  that  power  which  the  fathers  of  families  had 
over  their  children,  their  grandchildren,  and  their  pos- 
terity ;  which  power  did  extend  itself  much  farther  in 
ancient  times  than  now  it  can,  because  the  age  of  man 
was  much  longer,  and  mankind  did  multiply  much  faster 
than  now  it  doth.  As  the  subordination  of  divers  persons 
to  their  father,  or  first  progenitor  (as  to  one  head),  did 
make  one  tribe  or  family,  so  the  subordination  or  subjec- 
tion of  divers  tribes  or  families  to  one  chief  did  make  a 
kingdom.  .  .  .  For  this  reason  the  government  royal 


p.  6. 


82  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

is,  of  all  other  kinds,  the  most  agreeable  to  nature,  as 
taking  its  original  most  immediately  from  the  course  of 
nature.  Howbeit  it  cannot  be  denied  but  that  in  process 
of  time,  or  continuation  of  descents  from  one  prime  or 
famous  progenitor  worthy  to  govern  all  his  progeny  whilst 
he  lived,  there  usually  arose  more  several  collateral  fami- 
lies, which  did  grow  nearer  to  a  parity  between  themselves 
than  any  of  them  had  in  comparison  of  their  first  founder, 
or  progenitor,  or  than  had  been  between  such  as  first 
descended  from  him  ;  so  that  no  one  of  them  was  held 
fit  to  bear  rule  or  sovereignty  over  the  rest,  but  all  were 
well  fitted  for  a  social  league  or  confederacy.  And  from 
this  root  of  nature  did  spring  aristocracy,  or  the  form  of 
government  by  peers  and  nobles.  And  this  kind  of  gov- 
ernment, as  also  the  popular  government,  may  be  con- 
tinued either  by  inheritance  or  right  of  descent,  or  by  an- 
nual magistrate  or  magistrates  chosen  for  term  of  life."  * 
These  citations  are  made  not,  of  course,  in  proof  of 
the  proposition  that  the  ministry  in  the  Patriarchal  dis- 
pensation was  a  function  of  the  headship  of  the  family, 
but  because  of  the  graphic  and  suggestive  outline  which 
they  present  of  the  development  of  the  social  order  from 
the  original  institution  of  the  government  of  the  family, 
and  because  they  naturally  suggest  the  inference  that  in 
a  government  of  this  sort,  not  only  involving  all  func- 
tions necessary  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  were  subject 
to  it,  but  also  resting  upon  the  conviction  of  the  Divine 
authority  of  its  establishment,  and  presupposing  the 
necessity  of  the  conformity  of  its  rule  to  the  Divine 
will  so  far  as  it  was  known,  and  of  so  propitiating  the 
Divine  Being  as  to  dispose  Him  to  a  favorable  regard, 


*  Works  of  Thos.  Jackson,  Book  XII.  ch.  vii.  §  5. 


FORM  OF  MINISTRY.  83 

there  would,  as  a  matter  of  course,  be  exercised  by  the 
head  of-  the  family  a  function  of  a  priestly  character 
in  the  way  of  mediation  and  intercession,  as  well  of 
benediction,  instruction,  and  training  in  the  fear  of  God 
and  in  the  knowledge  of  His  religion. 

In  other  words,  it  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the 
"  Supernatural  Presidency  "  to  which  Sir  Henry  Maine 
refers,  would  find  its  exponent,  in  these  primitive  times, 
in  the  head  of  the  family,  who,  as  he  was  the  chief  ruler 
in  all  matters  of  civil  and  temporal  concern,  would  also 
be  the  chief  priest  in  all  matters  of  religious  and  spiritual 
concern. 

Agreeable  to  this  is  the  evidence  furnished  by  the 
Scriptures,  of  early  instances  of  Divine  worship,  by  heads 
of  families,  in  the  priestly  way,  on  behalf  of  themselves 
and  others,  and  of  benediction  as  well  as  of  interces- 
sion.* 

The  priestly  character  of  Melchizedek,  King  of  Salem, 
whether  we  accept  the  view  that  bread  and  wine  were 
brought  forth  by  him  for  the  purpose  of  a  typical  sacri- 
fice, or  the  view  that  they  were  presented  merely  for 
refreshment,  is  evident  from  his  benediction  of  Abram, 
and  from  the  tithes  which  he  received  from  him,f  as  well 
as  from  the  fact  that  the  Scriptures  attribute  to  our  Lord 
a  priesthood  after  his  order.J  And  if  we  understand 

*  The  learned  Dr.  Outram,  in  his  valuable  treatise  on  "  Sacrifices'' 
(1677),  though  holding  that  it  was  the  custom  of  the  remotest  an- 
tiquity for  every  individual  to  act  as  his  own  priest— instancing  the 
sacrifices  of  Cain  and  Abel — yet  adds  :  "  In  the  sacrifices  designed 
for  every  family,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  father  of  the  family 
was  entitled  to  officiate  as  its  priest ;  and  in  the  exercise  of  this 
right,  Noah  and  Job  offered  sacrifices  for  themselves  and  their  re- 
spective families." — Diss.  I.  C.  IV.  iii. 

f  Gen.  xiv.  18-21.  \  Heb.  vi.  20;  vii. 


84  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

Melchizedek  to  have  been,  as  is  most  probable,  no  other 
than  Shem,  the  eldest  son  of  Noah,  the  association  of 
the  priestly  character  with  this  long-surviving  chief  of 
the  Patriarchs,  to  whom  even  the  Patriarch  Abraham 
recognized  his  allegiance,  is  certainly  the  more  signifi- 
cant.* The  first  action  of  Noah,  the  undoubted  head 
of  all  the  rescued  remnant  of  the  human  race,  after  his 
release  from  the  Ark,  is  to  build  an  altar  and  offer  burnt 
offerings  thereon,  accepted  by  God  as  an  offering  of  a 
sweet  savor,  and  of  so  propitiatory  a  character  as  to  be 
followed  by  the  Divine  covenant  of  mercy  and  provi- 
dential care  for  mankind  while  the  earth  should  remain. f 
And  of  Noah  before  the  flood,  St.  Peter  speaks  as  "  the 
eighth  person,  a  preacher  of  righteousness  ;  "  J  or,  omit- 
ting the  words  italicized,  as  inserted  by  the  translator, 
"  the  eighth  preacher  of  righteousness  ; "  i.e.,  not  numeri- 
cally the  eighth  person  since  the  Creation,  but  the  eighth 
in  the  direct  line  of  primogeniture  in  the  Patriarchal 
descent  exercising  the  function  which  belonged  to  his 
office,  of  preaching  righteousness,  or  proclaiming  and 
making  known  the  will  of  God,  §  the  line  being  counted 

*  "  The  fitness  (of  the  calling  of  Melchizedek  to  represent  the 
everlasting  Priesthood)  will  more  easily  be  apprehended  if  we  sup- 
pose what  the  ancient  Jews  (whose  traditions,  where  they  are  no 
parties,  are  in  no  wise  to  be  rejected)  take  as  granted,  viz.,  that  he 
whom  Moses  (Gen.  xiv.)  calls  Melchizedek,  was  Shem  the  Great, 
the  son  of  Noah.  ....  I  dare  not  obtrude  this  tradition  .  .  . 
as  a  point  of  our  belief,  yet  the  matter  of  it  is  as  probable  as  any 
doctrine  whatsoever,  that  is  grounded  only  upon  the  analogy  of  the 
faith,  not  upon  express  testimonies  of  Scripture,  or  conclusions  de- 
duced from  such  testimonies  by  demonstrative  consequence.  The 
allegations  for  this  opinion,  were  they  exactly  calculated  or  put 
together,  amount  so  high,  as  no  assertion  contained  within  the 
sphere  of  probability  can  overtop  them." — JACKSON,  Works,  vol.  xii. 
pp.  233,  224.  f  Gen.  viii.  20-23.  t  2  St.  Pet.  ii.  5.  §  Gen.  v. 


FORM  OF  MINISTRY.  85 

from  Enos,  the  firstborn  of  Seth,  presumably  because  in 
his  time  men  began  to  be  called  by  the  name  of  the 
Lord  ;  *  that  is  to  say,  because  in  his  time  the  Patri- 
archal Church  began  to  be  recognized  as  distinct  from 
the  apostate  descendants  of  Cain,  and  its  members  .to  be 
called  the  sons  of  God  as  distinguished  from  the  chil- 
dren of  men.  f  The  Patriarch  Job,  in  the  time  of  his 
prosperity,  when  his  sons  had  their  alternate  feasts  in 
their  own  houses,  was  wont  to  rise  up  early  in  the  morn- 
ing and  offer  burnt  offerings  according  to  the  number  of 
them  all ;  for  Job  said,  "  It  may  be  that  my  sons  have 
sinned,  and  cursed  God  in  their  hearts.  Thus  did  Job 
continually."  \  And  after  his  day  of  affliction  was  passed, 
God  sends  the  three  friends,  who  had  misrepresented 
Him,  to  Job,  whose  prayers  of  intercession  in  con- 
nection with  their  burnt  offerings  He  affirms  that  He 
will  accept.  §  Similarly,  Abimelech  is  directed  to  avail 
himself  of  the  intercessions  of  the  Patriarch  Abraham,  || 
who  is  here  called  a  prophet.  And  Jethro,  the  father-in- 
law  of  Moses,  "  the  priest  of  Midian,"  acknowledging 
the  Lord  to  be  greater  than  all  gods,  offers  a  burnt 
offering  and  sacrifices,  in  which  act  of  religious  worship 
Moses,  Aaron,  and  the  Elders  of  Israel  participate,  com- 
ing to  eat  bread  with  Moses'  father-in-law  before  God.  ^[ 
The  value  of  this  privilege  in  the  Patriarchal  times,  as 
connected  with  the  right  of  primogeniture,  may  be  esti- 
mated from  the  magnitude  of  the  fault  of  Esau  in  de- 
spising his  birthright,  since  it  was  not  only  an  abdication 
of  his  right  of  rule,  but  also  of  his  function  of  priest- 
hood, and  so  directly  disrespectful  to  God.** 

*  Gen.  iv.  26.     Margin.       f  Gen.  vi.  I,  2.  \  Job  i.  4,  5. 

§  Job,  xlii.  7-9.  I  Gen.  xx.  7.  f.  Ex.  xviii.  1-12. 

**  Gen.  xxv.  29-34  ;  Heb.  xii.  16,  17. 


86 


ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 


2.  Under  the  Mosaic  dispensation  the  succession  to 
the  Ministry  was  by  inheritance  limited  to  the  family  of 
Levi. 

This  Ministry  was  of  divers  orders,  and  exercised,  with 
respect  to  a  Church  comprising  numerous  families,  powers 
of  the  same  general  kind  as  essentially  belong  to  Christ 
\-\  His  mediatorial  kingdom  ;  but  these  powers  in  this 
T.iinistry  were,  like  other  institutions  in  that  dispensation, 
typical  or  representative  of  the  powers  which  were  to  be 
manifested  in  Christ  in  the  fulness  of  the  time  appointed. 

The  Priesthood  was  in  the  family  of  Levi.  Aaron  was 
the  High  Priest,  and  his  descendants  in  the  line  of  the 
firstborn  were  ordinarily  his  successors  in  that  office. 
The  other  descendants  of  Aaron  were  priests.  The  other 
descendants  of  Levi  were  Levites  ;  i.e. ,  the  descendants 
of  Levi  through  Cohath,  Gershom,  and  Merari  were 
Levites,  excepting  the  line  of  Cohath  through  Amram, 
the  father  of  Moses  and  Aaron. 

Levi 


Cohath 


Gershc 


Amram     Izhar     Hebron     Uzziel 

\         I  / 

Cohathites  Gershomites 


Merari 


Merarites 


Levites 


Aaron  Moses 

(High  Priest)         (Prophet  of  extraordinary  ministry) 


Eldest  sons  High  Priests 


Other  male  descendants  Priests 


FORM  OF  MINISTRY.  87 

This  Priesthood  came  by  descent  and  was  indefeasible  ; 
but  the  persons  inheriting  it  did  not  as  a  matter  of  course 
exercise  its  functions,  but  were  admitted  to  that  exercise 
at  a  certain  age  and  in  a  formal  manner  :  in  the  case  of 
the  High  Priest  and  Levites,  by  sacrifices  as  well  as  other 
ceremonies  ;  in  the  case  of  the  priests,  by  prayer  and 
benediction  without  sacrifice.* 

Exceptional  cases  occur  in  this  period  not  affecting 
the  polity  of  the  Church  ;  e.g.,  the  Prophets,  not  neces- 
sarily of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  and  yet  exercising  some  or  all 
of  the  functions  of  the  Ministry.  Their  undoubted 
authority  is  no  precedent  for  irregular  ministrations  in 
the  Church  of  Christ.  They  had  an  especial  and  ex- 
traordinary Divine  commission,  and  gave  supernatural 
evidence  of  it  by  miracles. 

3.  Under  the  Christian  dispensation  the  succession  to 
the  Ministry  is  by  selection  and  appointment  of  individ- 
uals without  regard  to  inheritance  :  a  succession  com- 
municated from  Christ  through  the  Apostles  by  the  gift 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  connection  with  an  external 
individual  call  given  by  those  who  have  themselves 
received  it. 


*  Cf.  Lewis's  "  Antiquities  of  the  Hebrew  Republic,"  Book  II. 
chap.  i.  Andrewes's  summary  view  of  the  government  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament,  in  his  "  Pattern  of  Catechistical  Doctrine," 
Works,  A.  C.  L. 


ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 


PROPOSITION   XIII. 

In  view  of  His  departure  from  the  earth,  Christ  established 
in  the  Church  a  chief  office  on  terms  of  permanence,  and 
promised  and  gave  to  those  who  first  held  the  office  the 
especial  aid  and  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  dis- 
charge of  its  duties. 

THIS  proposition  includes  two  others  : 

1.  That  Christ  established  a  permanent  chief  office. 

2.  That  the  first  holders  of  that  office  were  empowered 
and  directed  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

i.  It  results  from  different  conceptions  of  the  nature 
of  the  Church,  that  there  should  be  varying  views  of  the 
constitution  of  the  Ministry.  If  it  be  understood  that 
the  Church  consists  only  of  an  indistinguishable  mul- 
titude, who  by  their  personal  faith  have  individually 
attached  themselves  with  heart  and  mind  to  Christ,  it 
will  be  natural  to  expect  that  the  organization  of  the 
Church  shall  be  regarded  as  a  matter  of  conventional 
arrangement,  and  that  every  association  of  men  con- 
scious to  themselves  of  an  individual  union  with  Christ, 
should  arrange  a  ministry  for  such  purposes  as  the  asso- 
ciation may  require.  If  it  be  understood,  on  the  other 
hand,  that  the  Church  is  by  Divine  appointment,  accord- 
ing to  the  will  and  disposition  of  its  Founder,  a  compact 
and  regular  society,  whose  members  are  united  with  Him 
through  their  membership  in  His  society,  it  will  be 
natural  to  expect  that  the  same  design  which  constituted 
the  society  will  have  constituted  an  order  of  government 
for  it.  It  is  antecedently  possible,  of  course,  that  Christ 
could  have  lived  and  taught  among  men  as  one  who 
came  merely  to  present  and  explain  a  new  philosophy  of 


PERMANENT  CHIEF  OFFICE.  89 

life,  and  that  He  might  have  left  His  followers  to  their 
own  choice  as  to  the  manner  in  which  they  should 
individually  or  collectively  apply  His  teaching.  Christ 
might  have  been,  like  Socrates  or  Plato,  the  expounder 
of  ideas,  the  founder  of  a  school  of  thought ;  and  man- 
kind might,  doubtless,  have  been  much  profited  by  the 
mental  digestion  of  His  profound  wisdom,  and  by  the 
endeavor  to  approximate  their  lives  to  the  pattern  of 
His  pure  morality.  But  it  is  also  antecedently  improb- 
able that  such  a  design  on  His  part  would  have  led  Him 
to  do  what  the  evidence  shows  that  He  did  do — that  He 
should  have  made  any  provision  for  the  association  of 
His  followers  ;  that  He  should  have  appointed  any  Min- 
istry;  that  He  should  have  instituted  any  outward  observ- 
ances— much  less  that  He  should  have  connected  those 
outward  observances  with  the  grace  of  a  spiritual  in- 
fluence which  reached  beyond  the  range  of  mental  and 
moral  operations  even  to  the  extent  of  an  indwelling  of 
Christ  within  the  disciple,  and  the  accomplishment  of  h'is 
vital  union  with  Christ,  wrought  by  the  new  birth  of 
water  and  the  Spirit,  and  maintained  by  the  nourishment 
of  the  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ.  What  philosopher 
ever  went  beyond  the  sphere  of  reason  and  will,  and  the 
influence  through  these  upon  the  moral  action  of  men, 
and  provided  for  the  re-creation  of  his  followers,  and  the 
engrafting  of  them  into  a  new  state  of  being,  in  which 
he  should  dwell  in  them  and  they  in  him?  Or,  not 
content  with  furnishing  principles  suited  to  a  better  and 
happier  life  in  this  world,  provided  further  for  the  life 
eternal  through  -the  participation  of  his  flesh  and  blood  ?  * 

*  "  Such  langunge"  (I  am  the  Life  of  the  world,  .  .  .  the 
Living  Bread  ;  .  .  .  except  ye  eat  the  Flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man, 
etc.)  "cannot  be  understood  to  signify  a  merely  moral  union  between 


9°  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

Certainly,  if  we  accept  the  Gospel  record  of  the  life  of 
Christ,  and  the  record  of  the  subsequent  Apostolic  teach- 
ing, we  are  confronted  with  the  twofold  purpose  of  Christ 
to  establish  between  Himself  and  His  followers  a  spiritual 
unity  and  an  external  social  or  moral  union.  The  evi- 
dence of  the  fact  of  spiritual  unity  with  Christ,  in  which 
the  disciples  are  in  Him  as  the  branches  are  in  the  vine  ; 
in  which  He  is  in  them  as  the  Father  is  in  Him  ;  in  which 
they  are  born  of  the  Spirit  and  nourished  unto  life 


Christ  and  His  Church  ;  for  what  sense  allows,  what  usage  requires, 
that  any  intensity  of  love  or  reverence  for  a  person  can  be  expressed 
by  the  eating  of  that  person?  .  .  .  We  must  therefore  understand 
such  words  to  express  not  only  a  moral,  but  a  natural  union  ;  not 
only  a  consent  of  will  and  affection,  but  a  communion  of  nature  and 
essence,  the  element  of  which  is  the  Holy  Spirit,  Who  proceeds  from 
the  Father  and  the  Son  ;  Who  in  them  is  lifeunoriginated,  and  in  us 
is  life  communicated.  .  .  . 

"The  substantial  reality  of  this  union  is  further  declared  in  the 
words  in  which  our  Lord  instituted  the  holy  sacrament  of  His  Body 
and  Blood.  .  .  .  We  may  suppose  a  feast  instituted  in  memory 
of  Franklin  or  Washington,  or  any  sage  or  hero  who  has  devoted 
his  life  to  the  good  of  his  country  and  his  kind.  But  who  ever  heard 
of  the  memory  of  any  man  being  perpetuated  by  eating  his  body  and 
drinking  his  blood  ?  What  ignorance  ever  originated,  what  wisdom 
ever  devised,  what  usage  of  language  in  any  nation,  barbarous  or 
civilized,  ever  authorized  such  an  expression  to  denote  the  com- 
memoration of  human  virtue  ?  Try  the  expression  and  consider  it, 
and  see  if  there  be  any  possible  sense  in  which  the  disciples  of 
Socrates  or  Plato,  or  Luther  or  Bacon,  can  be  said  to  eat  the  body 
and  drink  the  blood  of  the  man  whom  they  respectively  follow? 
And  yet  our  Lord  plainly,  repeatedly,  emphatically,  offered  Himself 
to  be  eaten  and  drunk  by  His  Church  ;  and  in  our  Liturgy  we  thank 
God  that  He  has  given  us  His  Son  to  be  our  spiritual  food  and 
sustenance  in  this  holy  sacrament." — Discourses  illustrative  of  the 
Nature  and  Work  of  the  Hob>  Spirit,  by  the  late  Rev.  Dr.  Samuel 
Seabury,  p.  77  (1874). 


PERMANENT  CHIEF  OFFICE.  91 

eternal  by  His  Flesh  and  Blood  through  the  quickening 
Spirit,  is  as  plain  as  words  can  make  it.  And  the 
evidence  of  the  fact  of  His  calling  men  to  be  His 
disciples  ;  of  His  association  of  water  with  the  birth  of 
Spirit,  and  of  bread  and  wine  with  His  Body  and  Blood  ; 
of  His  appointment  of  a  regular  Ministry,  and  of  His  pro- 
vision for  the  continuance  of  that  Ministry  in  the  exercise 
of  powers  bestowed  upon  them,  to  be  outwardly  exercised 
until  the  world's  end,  is  also  as  plain  as  words  can  make 
it.  If  the  two  facts  of  spiritual  unity  and  external  union 
thus  evidenced  to  us  were  apparently  inconsistent  with 
each  other,  we  should  still  be  obliged,  on  the  principles  of 
reason,  to  accept  each  upon  its  own  evidence  ;  we  could 
not  accept  one  and  ignore  the  other.  Much  less  are  we 
justified  in  pursuing  this  course  when  the  two  facts  are 
not  at  all  inconsistent,  but  on  the  contrary  complemen- 
tary— the  one  being  obviously  the  means  by  which  the 
other  is  accomplished.  And  if  either  of  these  facts  is 
inconsistent  with  the  assumption  that  Christ  was  merely 
the  teacher  of  a  philosophy  which  men  were  to  absorb 
and  assimilate  according  to  their  own  pleasure,  certainly 
both  together  are  inconsistent  with  the  idea  that  the  true 
Church  is  an  invisible  abstraction,  the  concrete  exponent 
of  which  is  to  be  found  only  in  voluntary  associations. 
Yet,  acting  more  or  less  consciously  upon  this  idea,  men 
have  given  expression  to  it  by  different  theories  of  the 
commission  to  the  Ministry,  making  it  either  to  be 
derived  from  the  authority  of  the  congregation  or  body 
associated,  conferred  upon  those  who  conceive  them- 
selves to  have  been  already  called  by  the  Spirit  to  the 
exercise  of  it,  or  from  the  inward  consciousness  of  a. 
direct  call  of  the  Spirit  without  the  intervention  of  any 
external  means  whatever. 


9^  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

These  theories,  which  may  be  called  respectively  the 
Congregational  and  the  Independent,  have  prevailed  ex- 
tensively among  those  who  since  the  Reformation  have 
separated  themselves  into  voluntary  associations  under 
various  names,  expressive  of  particular  tenets  upon  which 
they  have  thought  it  necessary  to  lay  especial  stress. 
And  it  is  to  be  noted  that  they  have  prevailed  the  more 
extensively  in  proportion  as  men  have  been  imbued  with 
the  idea  that  the  only  true  Church  is  the  Church  Invisible, 
since  they  well  accord — especially  the  former — with  the 
idea  that  the  Church  Visible  is  a  congeries  of  voluntary 
associations. 

There  are,  however,  other  objectionable  theories  which 
are  hardly  traceable  to  this  conception  of  the  Church, 
but,  on  the  contrary,  assume  the  Divine,  or  at  least  the 
Apostolic,  origin  of  the  Visible  Church,  although  it  seems 
in  that  view  to  be  relegated  to  a  sort  of  ancillary  station, 
and  to  have  a  rather  apologetic  existence  in  view  of  the 
sufficiency  of  the  Church  Invisible  to  accomplish  all  the 
really  needful  ends  of  redemption.  These  theories  may 
be  called  the  Presbyterian  and  the  Episcopal.  They 
are  largely  due,  as  has  been  already  intimated,  to  the 
scholastic  influence  which  produced  the  opinion  prevalent 
about  the  period  of  the  Reformation,  that  the  full  power 
of  order  resided  in  the  Priesthood,  of  which  the  Episco- 
pate was  a  branch  or  extension  with  additional  powers  of 
jurisdiction.  But  they  both  likewise  assume  the  sub- 
Apostolic  organization  of  the  Church,  and  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Ministry  of  the  Church,  either  by  a  process 
of  growth  and  development  within  the  Church  itself  out 
of  a  fancied  original  equality,  or  at  best  the  arrangement 
and  settlement  of  a  Ministry  by  the  Apostles  de  novo,  and, 
as  it  were,  in  substitution  for  the  Apostolic  Ministry  of 


PERMANENT  CHIEF  OFFICE.  93 

Christ's  ordination.  Much  learned  controversy  has  re- 
sulted upon  the  question  whether  the  Apostles — suppos- 
ing them  to  have  provided  the  Church  with  a  Ministry — 
constituted  that  Ministry  of  three  orders  or  of  only  two. 
The  Presbyterian  theory  insists  upon  two,  and  what  is  here 
called  the  Episcopal  theory  insists  upon  three.  In  both 
cases  the  objection  may  fairly  be  made  that  the  Ministry 
of  Christ's  institution  ceases,  and  a  new  ministry  of 
Apostolic  institution  begins ;  and  although  we  may  assume 
that  their  possession  of  the  Holy  Spirit  made  the  Apostles' 
institution  practically  a  Divine  institution,  yet  much  is 
lost  in  the  placing  of  the  Episcopate  upon  this  foundation 
instead  of  making  it  a  continuance  of  the  original  institu- 
tion of  Christ.  The  Apostolic  Ministry  of  Christ  vanishes. 
Another  Ministry  takes  its  place.  And  room  is  given  for 
the  argument  that  the  Episcopate  is  rather  a  providential 
development  than  a  directly  Divine  imposition  ;  rather  a 
historic  fact  than  a  spiritual  reality.  No  such  weakness 
belongs  to  the  position  that  the  whole  power  of  the  Min- 
istry of  the  Church  is  inherent  in  the  Apostolic  office  of 
Christ's  institution,  and  that  the  Apostles,  in  accordance 
with  their  commission  and  acting  under  the  guidance  and 
direction  of  the  Spirit,  distributed  the  powers  lodged  in 
that  office  as  occasion  was  given  them  in  the  enlargement 
of  the  Church,  admitting  two  subordinate  orders  to  their 
respective  and  limited  shares  thereof,  and  handing  down 
their  own  office  in  its  entirety  to  others  whom  they  ad- 
mitted to  succeed  them  in  it — so  that  the  development 
of  the  Christian  Ministry  was  not  a  development  from 
beneath  upward,  but  from  above  downward. 

But  before  noting  the  evidence  which  appears  to  sus- 
tain this  position,  it  will  be  well  to  refer  briefly,  by  way 
of  caution,  to  another  theory,  which  is  not  indeed  a 


94  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

theory  of  the  Ministry,  but  such  a  theory  of  the  Church 
as  sensibly  affects  the  estimate  of  the  power  and  author- 
ity of  the  Ministry.  The  theory  results  not  from  regard- 
ing the  true  Church  as  Invisible,  and  the  Visible  Church 
as  optional,  but  rather  from  a  tendency  to  confuse  the 
two — ignoring  the  essential  distinction  between  the  spir- 
itual unity  of  Christ  with  His  members,  and  the  external 
social  union  by  which,  through  the  operation  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  He  designed  the  accomplishment  of  that  unity. 
Yet  the  distinction  is  one  which,  in  the  nature  of  things, 
is  inherent  in  the  sacramental  idea  which  pervades  the 
universe  itself,*  and  notably  the  Divine  dealing  with  man, 
and  is  surely  not  to  be  ignored  in  our  conception  of  the 
Church.  As  the  Twenty-eighth  Article  declares  of  tran- 
substantiation,  that  it  overthroweth  the  nature  of  a  sacra- 
ment, so  a  conception  of  the  Church  which  identifies  the 
unity  with  the  union,  making  the  Church  Visible  the 
same  as  that  of  which  it  was  instituted  to  be  the  efficient 
cause,  overthroweth  the  nature  of  that  Church.  And 
this  mystical  theory — for  so,  perhaps,  without  offence  it 


*  "  Every  structure  stands  upon  a  basement  of  some  sort  ;  .  .  . 
the  larger  the  edifice,  the  broader  spread  the  courses  of  masonry  be- 
low. What  shall  be  said  of  the  sacramental  system,  whose  maker 
and  builder  is  God,  which  is  ample  enough  to  gather  in  the  nations  ; 
in  whose  successive  stories,  as  they  rise  upward,  room  and  place  are 
provided  for  all  people,  tongues,  and  languages  of  the  redeemed  ? 
Must  not  such  a  structure  as  this  have  a  foundation  commensurate 
with  its  proportions  and  adequate  to  its  design  ?  That  is  what  I 
have  already  suggested  for  your  consideration,  alleging  that  a  system 
so  large  and  grand  may  be  regarded  as  undoubtedly  anchored  some- 
where in  the  roots  and  bases  of  the  universe  itself." — The  Sacra- 
mental System  Considered  as  the  Extension  of  the  Incarnation 
(Paddock  Lectures  of  1892),  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Morgan  Dix  (the  whole 
of  which  book  the  student  should  read). 


PERMANENT  CHIEF  OFFICE.  95 

may  be  called — regarding  the  Church  as  in  such  sense 
the  Body  of  Christ  as  that  it  (not  merely  possesses  in 
its  sacramental  system  a  means  by  which  the  extension 
of  Christ's  Incarnation  is  effectually  and  beneficially  ac- 
complished— which  is  a  just  and  elevating  conception — 
but)  in  itself  constitutes  such  extended  Incarnation  ;  and 
reasoning  from  this  premise,  either  toward  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  powers  of  the  Ministry  necessarily  operate 
to  produce  their  proper  spiritual  effects,  thus  attributing 
to  the  Divine  grace  the  character  of  a  natural  or  me- 
chanical force  ;  or  else  toward  the  conclusion  that  the 
Church  is  as  a  result  of  this  Incarnation  so  identified 
with  Christ  that  whatsoever  it  does  or  wills  is  the  deed 
and  will  of  Christ,  may  very  justly  be  said,  in  its  con- 
fusion of  ends  and  results  with  means  and  processes,  to 
overthrow  the  nature  of  the  Church,  and  to  obscure  the 
view  of  its  true  constitution.  For  the  Church  of  Christ 
is  not  a  force  ;  nor  is  it  Christ  Himself.  It  is  a  society 
constituted  by  Him,  with  institutions  and  laws  imposed 
by  Him  as  its  Head,  requiring  the  voluntary  obedience 
of  its  members  ;  distinguished  from  other  societies  by  its 
Divine  foundation,  and  the  fact  that  it  is  made  by  its 
Divine  Founder  the  custodian  of  a  supernatural  faith, 
and  the  vehicle  or  channel  of  a  supernatural  grace,  but 
none  the  less  a  society,  and  none  the  less  dealing  with 
men  after  the  manner  of  an  external  social  union,  involv- 
ing the  concurrence  and  cooperation  of  the  individual 
reason  and  will.  Being  so  constituted  it  becomes  the 
Body  of  Christ.  But  the  society  or  body  dignified  by 
this  title  possesses  it  as  a  moral  entity  ;  socially  and  not 
as  a  philosophical  abstraction.  Nor  can  such  a  body, 
however  it  be,  in  the  intent  of  its  institution,  fitted  to 
procure  the  unity  of  its  members  with  Christ,  ever  be,  as 


96  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

such,  in  itself  so  the  Body  of  Christ  as  to  be  the  same 
Body  in  which  He  is  incarnate  ;  nor,  if  such  a  thing  were 
possible,  could  the  part  be  the  whole,  or  the  Body  of 
Christ  the  whole  Christ,  so  that  His  Headship,  rule,  and 
sovereignty  over  it  could  be  devolved  upon  it  and  sub- 
jected to  its  will ;  or,  which  comes  to  the  same  thing, 
infallibly  represented  by  its  voice.  The  notion  that  the 
Church,  being  the  Body  of  Christ,  is  so  able  to  speak  for 
Christ  as  that  its  voice  shall  be  His  voice,  is,  of  all  others 
that  the  wit  of  man  has  yet  devised,  at  once  the  most 
fanciful,  and  the  most  destructive  of  the  principles  of 
the  constitutional  order  of  the  Church.  In  this  notion 
the  Church  so  magnifies  its  office  as  to  assume  to  become 
Christ  Himself  ;  nor  is  this  pretence  to  infallibility  less 
objectionable  than  that  of  the  Papacy,  except  that  its 
utterance  would  be  more  difficult  to  ascertain  and  es- 
tablish. This  difficulty,  however,  would  be  likely  to  be 
met  by  making  the  voice  of  each  particular  Church 
equivalent  to  the  expression  of  the  voice  of  the  whole 
when  that  could  not  conveniently  be  had  ;  and  as  the 
notion  assumes  that  all  the  powers  of  the  Ministry  are 
conferred  upon  them  through  the  Church,  which  has  first 
received  them  ;  which  involves  the  dangerous  consequence 
that  these  powers  may  be  resumed  and  re-distributed  by 
the  authority  by  which  they  were  communicated,  it  seems 
that  after  all  we  have  here  nothing  better  than  a  hash  of 
the  principles  of  Congregationalism  served  in  the  gilded 
dish  of  reverence  for  the  Church. 

But  if  it  were  the  will  of  our  Lord  to  establish  His 
Church  among  men  after  the  manner  of  a  society  or 
kingdom,  of  which  He  Himself  is  the  perpetual  Head, 
and  to  provide  for  the  government  of  that  society  by 
communicating  to  a  successive  Ministry  such  measure  of 


PERMANENT  CHIEF  OFFICE.  97 

that  authority  which  belonged  alone  to  His  own  office  as 
was  needful  for  the  benefit  of  successive  generations  of 
His  disciples,  it  would  seem  that  such  an  arrangement 
would  be  altogether  probable  and  natural,  and  such  as 
would  be  consistent  with  the  nature  of  the  Church  as  the 
means  of  accomplishing  the  ends  of  redemption. 

That  our  Lord  transmitted  to  the  Apostles  the  authority 
which  He  administered  on  earth,  appears  to  be  involved 
in  the  relation  in  which  the  Apostles  stood,  as  those  who 
were  manifestly  in  training  for  the  due  execution  of  a 
trust  to  be  reposed  in  them  after  His  departure  ;  as  well 
as  from  particular  texts,  which  have  already  been  in 
part  considered. 

It  is  recorded  that  after  having  by  His  preaching 
gathered  disciples,  and  having  by  His  miracles  given  them 
such  evidence  of  His  Divine  authority  as  was  needed  to 
establish  their  faith  in  Him,  our  Lord  went  out  into  a 
mountain  to  pray,  and  continued  all  night  in  prayer  to 
God.  And  when  it  was  day  He  called  His  disciples  ; 
and  of  them  He  chose  twelve,  whom  also  He  named 
Apostles.*  These  Apostles,  enumerated  by  name,  are 
sometimes  called  "the  twelve,"  sometimes  "the  twelve 
disciples,"  sometimes  "  the  disciples,"  and  "  His  disci- 
ples ;  "  but  the  distinction  between  them  and  the  company 
of  disciples  is  as  plain  as  between  that  company  and  the 
multitude.  Unto  the  twelve  Apostles  St.  Luke  relates 
that  He  said  :  "  I  appoint  unto  you  a  kingdom,  as  My 
Father  hath  appointed  unto  Me."  f  St.  Mark  says  : 
"  He  ordained  twelve,  that  they  should  be  with  Him,  and 
that  He  might  send  them  forth  "  J— enumerating  them. 
According  to  St.  Matthew,  who  also  enumerates  them, 

*  St.  Luke,  vi.  12-16.  t  St-  Luke,  xxii.  29-30. 

J  St.  Mark,  iii.  13-19. 


9^  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

He  gives  them  various  instructions,  *  sends  them  to 
preach  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel,  f  and 
tells  them  :  "  He  that  receiveth  you  receiveth  Me,  and 
he  that  receiveth  Me  receiveth  Him  that  sent  Me "  ;  J 
promises  them  that  when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  sit  on 
the  throne  of  His  glory,  they  also  shall  sit  on  twelve 
thrones  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel ;  §  and  bids 
the  eleven  (after  the  defection  of  Judas)  go  and  disciple 
all  nations,  baptizing  and  teaching  them  to  observe  all 
things  which  He  had  commanded  them.  ||  In  the  narrative 
of  the  Institution  of  the  Eucharist,  St.  Matthew  ^f  and 
St.  Mark  **  record  the  commission  to  commemorate  His 
sacrifice  as  spoken  to  the  twelve,  St.  Luke  ft  to  the  twelve 
Apostles.  St.  John,  who  does  not  relate  the  Institution, 
records  that  which  follows  it,  and  represents  our  Lord  as 
saying  to  the  disciples,  "  Ye  have  not  chosen  Me,  but  I 
have  chosen  you,  and  ordained  you."  \\  As  there  is  no 
evidence  of  any  addition  to  the  number  present  at  the 
Institution,  it  is  a  matter  of  course  that  these  words  were 
spoken  to  the  Apostles. 

These  texts  are  sufficient  evidence  of  an  official  char- 
acter given  by  our  Lord  to  the  Apostles  involving 
authority  as  well  as  ministerial  function.  They  would 
be  sufficient  even  if  they  were  not  corroborated  by  that 
passage  which  many  have  regarded  as  the  chief  evidence 
of  our  Lord's  commission  to  them  ;  that,  namely,  which 
occurs  in  St.  John,  xx.  21-23,  and  the  interpretation  of 
which  controls  the  interpretation  of  St.  Matt.  xvi.  19, 


*  St.  Matt.  x.  f  St.  Matt.  x.  5-7.          \  St.  Matt.  x.  40. 
§  St.  Matt.  xix.  28.  I  St.  Matt,  xxviii.  91,  20. 

If  St.  Matt.  xxvi.  20.  **  St.  Mark,  xiv.  17. 

ft  St.  Luke,  xxii.  14.  \\  St.  John,  xv.  16. 


PERMANENT  CHIEF  OFFICE.  99 

and  xviii.  18  ;  and  certainly  if  there  were  any  reasonable 
ground  of  doubt  about  the  application  of  this  passage  to 
the  Apostles,  that  doubt  should  be  settled  in  accordance 
with  the  plain  meaning  of  other  passages,  and  not  be 
suffered  to  overbalance  them.  That  there  is  no  reasona- 
ble ground  for  this  doubt,  may  perhaps  be  justly  inferred 
from  the  unanimity  with  which  it  has  been  understood  in 
the  Church  that  the  act  of  breathing  and  the  accompany- 
ing words  were  directed  to  the  Apostles  alone  :  insomuch 
that  it  is  no  great  venture  to  say  that,  prior  to  the  present 
generation,  and  perhaps  its  predecessor,  there  is  no 
defender  of  the  Apostolic  Succession  who  even  so  much 
as  gives  a  reason  or  offers  an  argument  for  the  propriety 
of  this  interpretation,  so  entirely  is  it  taken  for  granted 
as  a  matter  of  course.  It  is  strange,  if  the  doubt  have 
any  reasonable  foundation,  that  it  should  not  have  been 
discovered  until,  under  the  influence  of  the  genius  of 
popular  sovereignty  in  the  State,  men  began  to  cast 
about  for  evidences  that  the  source  of  power  in  the 
Church  also  was  in  the  Body  and  not  in  the  Head.  It 
is  not,  indeed,  to  be  wondered  at  that  under  this  influ- 
ence men  should  altogether  scout  the  doctrine  of  Apos- 
tolic Succession  ;  but  that  men  who  profess  an  adherence 
to  that  doctrine  should  seek  to  accommodate  it  to  the 
prejudices  of  its  opposers  by  bringing  it  in  circuitously 
in  the  guise  of  a  grant  from  the  people,  is  a  process  more 
commendable  for  its  ingenuity  than  for  its  rectitude  ; 
though  the  attempt  to  appropriate  this  passage  to  their 
purposes  is  less  injurious  than  plausible. 

It  is  necessary  to  say,  however,  in  pointing  out  the 
speciousness  of  this  perversion  of  the  obvious  intent  of 
the  passage,  on  the  ground  of  the  fact  that  the  Apostles 
are  not  here  named  by  that  title,  and  of  the  inference 


100  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

that  others  than  the  Apostles  were  present  at  the  inter- 
view described  :  (i)  That  the  general,  if  not  unanimous, 
usage  of  the  Church  has  been  to  apply  it  to  the  Apos- 
tles ;  (2)  that  St.  John  in  his  Gospel  never  once  desig- 
nates the  Apostles  by  that  title,  but  always  by  that  of 
Disciples  which  he  here  uses  ;  and  (3)  that,  on  the  sup- 
position that  it  is  true  that  others  were  present,  there  is 
no  more  reason  for  supposing  that  words  implying  an 
official  character  were  addressed  to  the  company,  and 
not  to  those  who  had  already  been  set  apart  by  an 
official  appointment  and  designation,  than  there  is  for 
supposing  that  the  very  same  words  used  in  an  ordina- 
tion of  priests  at  the  present  day  in  a  public  service 
should  be  understood  to  be  addressed  to  the  congrega- 
tion, instead  of  to  those  who  already  had  previously 
served  the  term  of  their  Diaconate,  and  were  there  pres- 
ent to  receive  an  advancement  in  their  Order. 

That  the  authority  shown  by  these  texts  to  have  been 
conferred  upon  the  Apostles  was  given  to  them  not  only 
personally,  but  also  officially,  appears  from  the  promise 
made  in  connection  with  the  final  commission,  "  Lo,  I  am 
with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world."  *  If 
this  promise  was  made  to  the  Apostles  in  a  personal 
sense,  it  has  failed  ;  unless  it  be  understood  to  refer  to  a 
presence  with  them  after  death.  But  the  promise  was 
made  to  them  in  connection  with  the  direction  to  dis- 
charge those  duties  which  belonged  to  them  only  in  life  ; 
viz.,  preaching,  baptizing,  discipling,  etc.  Therefore, 
the  promise  of  Christ's  presence,  and  by  consequence 
the  commission  of  His  authority,  was  to  the  Apostles 
in  the  official  sense— to  their  office  rather  than  to  their 


*  St.  Matt,  xxviii.  20. 


DIVINE   GUIDANCE.  IOI 

persons — and,  being  a  promise  in  perpetuity,  involves 
the  permanence  of  the  office. 

There  is  another  consideration  which  adds  strength  to 
the  position  that  there  was  in  the  Apostles  not  merely  a 
personal  authority  or  commission  to  do  certain  things, 
but  also  the  tenure  of  an  office  in  which  powers  were,  so 
to  speak,  constitutionally  lodged.  This  consideration  is 
derived  from  the  history  of  St.  Thomas,  whose  absence 
from  the  company  of  the  Apostles  when  our  Lord  said 
unto  them,  "  As  My  Father  hath  sent  Me,  even  so  send  I 
you,"  has  led  some  to  question  the  idea  of  an  Apostolic 
commission,  because,  as  it  involves  the  same  authority  to 
each  Apostle,  the  want  of  authority  in  one  would  imply 
the  want  of  authority  in  all.  The  case,  however,  if 
properly  understood,  bears  in  the  other  direction.  For 
if  St.  Thomas  was,  like  the  rest  of  the  twelve,  regularly 
constituted  an  Apostle,  as  certainly  he  had  long  before 
been,  he  had  thereby  become  entitled  to  his  equal  share 
of  all  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  office,  at  what 
time  soever  this  authority  might  be  verbally  expressed  ; 
and  there  was  no  reason  why  his  absence  on  any  one 
occasion  of  such  expression  should  deprive  him  of  what 
was  as  needful  to  him  as  to  the  others  ;  nor,  as  his  sub- 
sequent history  shows  that  he  as  well  as  the  other  Apos- 
tles exercised  this  office,  is  there  any  reason  to  infer  that 
his  absence  on  the  occasion  referred  to  caused  him  to 
lack  any  of  those  powers  with  which  our  Lord  had 
endowed  it. 

2.  That  the  first  holders  of  this  office  were  enabled 
and  directed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  their  discharge  of  its 
duties,  is  important  as  establishing  the  Divine  authority 
of  their  action  in  the  distribution  of  the  powers  of  the 
office  into  several  Orders.  This  point  needs  no  citation 


102  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

of  evidence  beyond  the  reference  to  the  promise  of  our 
Lord  to  the  Apostles ;  *  His  direction  to  them,  after 
authority  (Egovffia)  f  had  been  conferred  upon  them, 
to  refrain  from  its  exercise  until  they  should  be  endued 
with  power  (dvva}.ii$)  from  on  High  ;  J  and  the  descent 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  Day  of  Pentecost.  § 

It  may  not  be  amiss,  however,  to  add,  that  there  seems 
to  be  as  little  ground  for  the  inference  that  the  presence 
of  others  besides  the  Apostles  at  the  time  and  place  of 
the  descent  of  the  Holy  Spirit  indicates  the  gift  of  the 
powers  of  the  Ministry  to  the  body  of  the  faithful,  as 
there  is  for  the  misapplication  of  the  passage  in  St.  John, 
xx.  21-23,  already  noted.  An  admission  of  the  fact  of 
such  presence,  even  if  it  involve  the  participation  of  all 
in  the  grace  given,  does  by  no  means  include  the  conse- 
quence that  this  grace  was  solely  the  communication  of 
ministerial  power,  much  less  that  all  those  present  re- 
ceived such  power.  Nothing  is  more  elementary  than 
that  "  there  are  diversities  of  gifts,  but  the  same 
Spirit,"  ||  nor  needs  anything  be  more  obvious  than  that 
the  grace  of  the  Holy  Spirit  descending  on  the  Day  of 
Pentecost  was  the  Divine  power  given  to  each  one 
receiving  it  to  walk  worthy  of  the  vocation  wherewith  he 
was  called  ;  so  that  the  grace  of  the  Ministry  would, 
according  to  the  analogy  of  the  Divine  dispensation,  be 
bestowed  upon  those  who  had  been  already  appointed  to 
that  Ministry,  and  the  grace  of  the  discipleship  would  be 
apportioned  to  the  needs  of  that  station. 


St.  John,  xvi.  13.     Acts,  i.  4.  5.  f  St.  Matt,  xxviii.  18. 

Acts,  i.  8.  §  Acts,  ii.  1-4.  |  i  Cor.  xii.  4-12. 


OFFICIAL   POWER  EXERCISED.  103 


PROPOSITION   XIV. 

The  Apostles  exercised  the  power  of  government,  and  other 
powers  belonging  to  their  office. 

NOTHING  can  be  a  plainer  proof  that  these  powers  were 
conferred  by  our  Lord  upon  the  Apostles,  than  the  fact 
that  they  exercised  them.  Nor  is  it  possible  to  imagine 
that  the  powers  of  the  Ministry  should  have  been,  accord- 
ing to  modern  theories,  either  evolved  out  of  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  Church,  or  delegated  by  it  in  pursuance 
of  our  Lord's  intent  or  previous  instruction,  when  we  find 
the  Apostles  exercising  them  as  a  means  of  perpetuating 
and  extending  the  Church  itself,  and  imparting  them  to 
others  for  the  like  use.  Obviously,  and  in  the  only 
natural  or  possible  order  of  things,  it  is  the  Ministry 
which  mediates  between  Christ  and  the  Church,  and  not 
the  Church  which  mediates  between  Christ  and  the  Min- 
istry ;  nor  can  there  be  any  suspicion  of  a  mistaken 
interpretation  of  the  acts  and  words  of  our  Lord,  when 
that  interpretation  accords  with  the  acts  performed  by 
the  Apostles.  "  And  whoever  carefully  reads  over  the 
New  Testament  will  find  that  scarce  any  act  of  power 
was  done  by  our  Lord  whilst  He  lived  on  earth,  which 
was  not,  at  least  in  some  degree,  exercised  by  the  Apostles 
after  His  Ascension."  * 

The  exercise  of  their  powers  appears,  among  other 
things,  in  their  taking  order  to  supply  the  place  of  Judas 
(Acts,  i.  15-26) ;  in  the  matter  of  ordaining  (Acts,  vi.  1-6, 


*  Archbishop  Potter,   "  Church  Government,"  ch.  iii.,  the  whole 
of  which  chapter  should  be  read  in  this  connection. 


104  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

x'.v.  23)  ;  of  confirming  (Acts,  viii.  14-17,  xix.  1-5)  ;  of 
excommunicating  (i  Cor.  v.  3-5)  ;  of  absolving  (2  Cor. 
ii.  10)  ;  of  making  laws  (Acts,  xv.  28,  29  ;  i  Cor.  xi.,  xiv.; 
2  Thess.  iii.  4,  10,  12)  ;  and  asserting  their  own  author- 
ity against  false  Apostles  (2  Cor.  xi.  13  ;  3  John,  9,  10). 
"  These  are  plain  proofs  that  the  Christian  Church  was 
then  governed  by  the  Apostles.  Yet  it  must  not  be  con- 
cealed that  there  were  some  at  Corinth  who  disclaimed 
St.  Paul's  authority.  But  upon  what  pretence  was  this 
done  ?  Did  they  deny  that  the  authority  which  he  exer- 
cised belonged  to  the  Apostolick  Office  ?  If  this  had  been 
objected,  it  would  have  put  him  upon  asserting  the  power 
of  the  Apostles  to  govern  the  Church.  But  instead  of 
that,  he  only  proves  his  own  title  to  the  Apostolick  Office, 
which  these  men  seem  to  have  denied,  because  he  had 
been  a  persecutor,  and  was  not  one  of  the  Twelve.  Whence 
they  rather  chose  to  be  called  the  followers  of  Apollos, 
who  was  an  eloquent  orator,  or  of  Cephas,  the  first  Apostle. 
In  opposition  to  these  schismatics,  he  proves  himself  to  be 
an  Apostle  both  in  the  general  sense  of  that  name,  and 
particularly  as  he  had  been  sent  to  preach  the  Gospel  to 
them.  .  .  .  Ye  are  the  seal  of  mine  Apostleship  in  the 
Lord.  ...  So  that  this  very  objection  is  rather  a 
proof  that  the  Apostles  had  such  an  authority  as  was 
exercised  by  St.  Paul  ;  since  it  appears,  that  they  who 
denied  him  this  authority,  did  it  on  this  pretence,  that  he 
was  not  an  Apostle  ;  and  the  way  he  takes  to  assert  his 
right  to  this  authority,  is  only  to  prove  his  right  to  the 
Apostolick  Office."  * 


Archbishop  Potter,  ut  supr. 


ORDINARY  AUTHORITY   TRANSMITTED.     105 


PROPOSITION   XV. 

In  exercising  the  power  of  Ordination  the  Apostles  (i)  or- 
dained to  two  degrees  inferior  to  their  own,  and  (2) 
admitted  some  to  their  own  order  and  transmitted  to 
them  their  ordinary  official  authority. 

UNDER  (r)  see  Acts,  vi.  1-6,  xiv.  23  ;  under  (2)  see 
Epistles  to  Timothy  and  Titus. 

In  saying  that  the  Apostles  admitted  some  to  their  own 
order,  it  is  not  meant  that  those  who  were  thus  admitted 
were  possessed  of  all  the  powers  and  privileges  which 
belonged  to  the  original  Apostles,  but  only  that  they 
received  the  ordinary  official  authority  of  the  Apostles. 

The  distinction  between  ordinary  and  extraordinary 
powers  and  gifts  is  both  obvious  and  important,  yet  it  is 
one  which  is  not  always  observed.  It  is  not  an  uncom- 
mon popular  prejudice  which  considers  the  Episcopal 
claim  to  Apostolic  succession  amply  refuted  by  the  ab- 
sence of  the  power  of  the  Bishops  to  work  miracles  as 
Apostles  did  ;  nor  indeed  are  the  subjects  of  this  preju- 
dice the  only  ones  who  misapprehend  the  nature  of  the 
miracle  and  its  function  in  the  Divine  dispensations  as 
the  evidence  of  the  Divine  mission.  But  certainly,  when 
this  evidence  has  been  sufficiently  given  to  arrest  the 
attention  of  men  and  induce  them  to  admit  the  right  of 
those  who  have  furnished  it  to  establish  an  order  or  sys- 
tem for  the  preservation  and  promulgation  of  the  Divine 
message,  the  need  for  such  extraordinary  demonstrations 
and  the  power  which  produced  them  has  passed  away. 
And  the  system  itself,  with  its  historical  record,  becomes 
the  standing  evidence  of  its  own  Divine  origin. 


106  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

"I  do  not  deny,"  says  Bishop  Bilson,*  "but  many 
things  in  the  Apostles  were  personal,  given  them  by 
God's  wisdom  for  the  first  spreading  of  the  faith  and 
planting  of  the  Churches  amongst  Jews  and  Gentiles. 
.  .  .  To  be  called  by  Christ's  own  mouth  and  sent  into 
all  nations  ;  to  be  furnished  with  the  infallible  assurance 
of  His  truth,  and  visible  assistance  of  His  Spirit,  not 
only  to  speak  with  tongues,  cure  diseases,  work  miracles, 
know  secrets  and  understand  all  wisdom,  but  to  give 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  others  that  they  might  do  the  like  : 
these  things  I  say  were  needful  at  the  first  planting  of 
the  Gospel.  .  .  .  But  to  maintain  the  Church  once 
settled  .  .  .  there  is  no  cause  why  either  .  .  . 
should  endure." 

The  distinction  is  therefore  very  plain,  in  the  matter 
of  succession,  between  the  personal  and  the  official 
powers  of  the  Apostles.  Their  personal  gifts  were  not 
successive  ;  neither  could  those  who  succeeded  to  the 
office  which  they  held,  act  in  the  government  of  the 
Church  in  all  respects  as  those  to  whom  the  first  settle- 
ment of  it  belonged.  The  point  is  that  the  Apostles 
transmitted  to  others,  along  with  the  power  of  ordination, 
that  power  of  supervision  and  government  over  Churches 
in  particular  places  which  they  themselves  exercised 
before  they  committed  the  duty  to  others.  These  ordi- 
nary powers  appear  in  the  cases  of  Timothy  and  Titus, 
but  there  is  a  plain  distinction  between  them  and  other 
powers  of  the  Apostles,  f 

Four  extraordinary  prerogatives  are  attributed  to  the 

*  "  The  Perpetual  Government  of  the  Church,"  ch.  ix.,  near  the 
beginning. 

f  As  to  the  Episcopal  authority  of  Timothy  and  Titus,  see  Arch- 
bishop Potter,  ch.  iv. 


ORDINARY  AUTHORITY    TRANSMITTED.     107- 

original    Apostles  :  (i)    Immediate    vocation   by    Christ 
Himself ;  (2)  Unlimited  commission   over   all    nations ; 

(3)  Infallible  direction  both  in  preaching  and  writing  ; 

(4)  Power  to  work  miracles— all  of  which  were  needful 
for  the  first-planting  of  Churches,  but  were  not  conveyed 
to   posterity   by   succession.     "  Other   things   they   had 
which  were  necessary  for  the  Church  in  all  future  ages, 
in  which  they  had  successors.     They  had  power  to  min- 
ister the  Word  and  Sacraments,  wherein  every  Presbyter 
succeedeth  them.      They  ordained    ministers,  executed 
censures,  and  other  things  belonging  to  the  government 
of  the  Church,  wherein  every  Bishop  succeedeth  them."  * 

Every  Apostle  was  in  fact  a  Bishop  in  the  sense  that 
the  Episcopal  was  included  within  the  Apostolic  power ; 
and  the  Bishop  is  an  Apostle  in  the  sense  of  having 
received  by  transmission  that  ordinary  and  successive 
Episcopal  authority  which  was  not  only  included  in  the 
Apostolic  office,  but  which  was  also  the  distinguish- 
ing characteristic  of  it.f  For  it  is  not  to  be  over- 
looked that  the  possession  of  extraordinary  gifts  was 
by  no  means  distinctive  of  Apostles,  but  is  attributed  in 
the  New  Testament  to  many  who  were  not  Apostles  ; 
whereas  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  office  belonged 
only  to  those  who  held  that  office. 

*  Mason's  "Consecration  of  English  Bishops,"  lib.  iv.  cap.  iii. 

\  See  Andrewes'  "  Summary  View  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments," and  cf.  Mason's  "Consecration  of  English  Bishops,"  lib.  i. 
cap.  iv. ;  and  Bilson's  "  Perpetual  Government  of  the  Church,"  Ep. 
to  Reader,  p.  n. 


lo8  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 


PROPOSITION    XVI. 

The  Apostles  recognized  as  possessing  the  authority  belong- 
ing to  their  several  offices  some  -whom  it  does  not  appear 
that  they  themselves  ordained ;  but  they  recognized  no 
office  as  superior  to  their  own,  and  no  powers  as  exempt 
from  their  government. 

1.  ST.   PAUL,  receiving    his   commission    from  Christ 
equally  with  the  other  Apostles,*  was  recognized  as  an 
Apostle. f 

2.  Barnabas  is  mentioned  by  St.  Paul  as  being  included 
in  the  same  recognition. J      He  is  traditionally  ranked  as 
an  Apostle,  but  there  is  no  evidence  of  his  ordination 
unless  it  be  found  in  Acts  xiii.  1-3,  which,  however,  was 
probably  his  appointment  to  a  special  work. 

The  objection  to  regarding  this  as  his  consecration  to 
the  Apostolate  is  that  the  evidence  places  him  and  St. 
Paul  in  the  same  position.  If  one  was  then  consecrated, 
so  was  the  other.  But  St.  Paul  certainly  was  not  (Gal. 
i.  i)  ;  therefore  Barnabas  was  not.  He  may  have  been 
consecrated  at  some  other  time  by  Apostles,  or  he  may 
have  received  an  extraordinary  commission  ;  there  is  no 
evidence  of  either,  but  the  recognition  of  him  shows  that 
there  was  one  or  the  other. 

3.  The  same  remark  may  be  made  with  respect   to 
Epaphroditus,  mentioned   by   St.   Paul   as   the   Apostle 
to  the  Philippians,  I>/JGOV  anoffroXov,  §    and    others, 


*  Gal.  i.  I.  t  Gal.  ii.  6-10.  JGal.  jj.  g 

§  Phil.  ii.  25.  I  2  Cor.  viii.  23. 


ORDINARY  AUTHORITY  SUPREME.  109 

4.  St.  Paul  recognizes  prophets  and  evangelists,  pas- 
tors and  teachers,  as  occupying  a  place  in  the  Ministry, 
or  as  exercising  functions  of  the  Ministry  equivalent  to 
those  of  Presbyters  and  Deacons.* 

There  is  no  evidence  of  the  ordination  of  ministers 
under  these  titles,  but  there  is  evidence  that  the  functions 
of  the  Ministry  exercised  by  those  who  acted  under  these 
titles  were  exercised  by  the  Divine  commission.  It  is 
probable  that  these  titles  were  names  applied  to  the 
regular  orders.  Certainly  there  is  evidence  that  those 
who  held  the  ordinary  commission  under  the  ordinary 
titles  exercised  functions  implied  in  the  special  titles 
referred  to  in  these  texts.  Philip  the  Deacon  was  an 
evangelist,  f  The  elders -were  exhorted  by  St.  Peter,  as 
pastors,  to  feed  the  flock. |  That  prophets  were  equiva- 
lent to  presbyters,  seems  to  have  been  the  tradition  of 
the  Church,  and  to  be  indicated  in  Ephesians  ii.  20. 
Compare  also  the  Collect  for  the  Feast  of  St.  Simon 
and  St.  Jude. 

Either  the  offices  indicated  by  these  special  titles  were 
the  same  as  those  denoted  by  the  titles  which  were  after- 
ward retained  by  the  Church,  or  else  they  were  merely 
extraordinary  and  belonged  only  to  the  period  of  mirac- 
ulous gifts  ;  so  that  the  references  to  them  in  the  New 
Testament  do  not  affect  the  argument  for  the  threefold 
Ministry.  Reference  is  here  made  to  them  only  to  show 
that,  whatever  they  were,  they  were  inferior  to  the 
Apostles. 

Whatever  gifts  extraordinary  might  be  bestowed  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  those  who  received  them  were  not  above 


*l  Cor.  xii.  28  ;  Eph.  iv.  u. 

f  Acts  xxi.  8.  \  r  St.  Pet.  v.  i,  a 


no  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  office.  St.  Paul's  direc- 
tions as  to  the  conduct  of  the  prophets  (i  Cor.  xiv.) 
show  the  inferiority  of  their  office  to  his.  Compare  also 
the  order  in  which  the  several  ministries  are  enumerated 
by  St.  Paul  (i  Cor.  xii.  28  ;  Eph.  iv.  n). 


CONFIRMATORY  EVIDENCE.  in 


PROPOSITION   XVII. 

The  evidence  of  the  establishment  of  the  Ministry  derived 
from  the  Gospels,  Acts,  and  Epistles  is  such  as  to  raise 
a  presumption  in  favor  of  the  threefold  order,  requiring 
positive  proof  to  rebut  it. 

No  such  proof  can  be  derived  from  the  Scriptures. 
So  far  from  it,  the  last  book  of  the  Canon  proves  the 
existence  in  several  Churches  of  officers  having  the 
Episcopal  power  of  the  Apostolic  office,  and  called  by 
a  name  of  the  same  import  with  that  of  Apostle,  which 
strengthens  the  presumption  already  raised.* 

Other  circumstances  there  are  which  tend  to  confirm 
the  evidence  above  produced,  and  show  that  it  is  not  the 
result  of  any  forced  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures. 

1.  The  analogy  of  the  threefold  order  in  the  Jewish 
Ministry. 

2.  The  intimations  of  the  will  of  Christ  given  : 

A.  In  the  appointment  of  two  orders  of  the  Ministry 
under  Him  while  He  ministered  on  earth,  the  Apostles 
and  the  seventy  Disciples  ;  as  to  which  two  appointments, 
their  distinction  from  and  relation  to  each  other,  reference 
should  be  made  to  Archbishop  Potter's  ch.  ii. 

£.  In  the  three  several  degrees  by  which  He  advanced 
the  Apostles  to  the  fulness  of  their  authority  (the  com- 
mission to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  House  of  Israel  ;  the 
commission  to  the  consecration  of  the  Eucharist  ;  the 


*  See  this  evidence,  which  some  modern  defenders  of  Apostolic 
Succession  have  rather  gratuitously  presented  to  the  adversary,  very 
judiciously  handled  by  Archbishop  Potter,  ch.  iv.  pp.  138-141,  edition 
of  I753- 


112  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

commission  to  disciple  all  nations),  corresponding  with 
the  three  degrees  of  His  own  ministry  (marked  by  His 
Baptism,  His  Resurrection,  and  His  Ascension,  in  each  of 
which  he  seems  to  have  received  an  accession  of  author- 
ity, although  he  seems  also  to  anticipate  the  last  two 
degrees  by  His  commission  at  the  Last  Supper,  and  by 
the  final  commission  given  before  His  Ascension,  but,  of 
course,  in  view  of  it).* 

3.  The    unbroken    tradition    and    testimony    of    the 
Church. 

*  Ante,  pp.  69-72. 


LIMITA7ION.  113 


PROPOSITION    XVIII. 

The  authority  of  the  Bishops,  being  such  as  belonged  to  the 
Apostles  officially,  must  be  subject  to  such  limitations  as 
attached  to  the  Apostles  themselves  in  the  discharge  of 
their  office. 

THIS  is  obvious  unless  it  be  supposed  that  the  Apostles 
conferred  greater  powers  than  they  themselves  possessed, 
which  is  absurd. 

Limitations  attaching  to  the  Apostles  in  the  discharge 
of  their  official  authority,  were  of  two  kinds  : 

1.  Such  as  were  necessarily  involved  in  their  original 
commission. 

2.  Such  as,  acting  infallibly  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Spirit,  they  imposed  upon  themselves. 

i.  Involved  in  their  original  commission  were  : 

A.  The  duty  of  obedience  to  the  laws  of  God,  the 
Apostles  being  ministers  o£  iheJDivine  will,  and  not  of 
their  own  arbitrary  power.     The  exercise  of  their  power 
to  make  laws,  as  well  as  of  their  other  powers,  is  affected 
by  this  limitation. 

B.  The  duty  of  confining-their official  acts  to  spiritual, 
in  distinction  to  civil,  matters.     In  the  former  they  were 
rulers,  as  representing  Christ  in  the  government  of  His 
visible  kingdom  on  earth  ;  in  the  latter  they  were  sub- 
jects,  as   being   members   of    the   Commonwealth,    and 
amenable  to  its  laws  in  all  things  not  contrary  to  the  will 
of  God,  in  accordance  with  the  example  and  precept  of 
Christ,  Who  declined  to   interfere  in  controversies  per- 
taining   to   the    civil  courts   (St.  Luke  xii.  13,  14),  and 

8 


114  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

Who  bade  men  render  unto  Caesar  the  things  of  Caesar 
(St.  Matt.  xxii.  21). 

C.  The  duty  of  subordination  on  the  part  of  the  indi- 
vidual Apostle  to  the  College  of  Apostles. 

The  commission  of  the  individual  presupposed  his 
acting  with  the  express  or  implied  assent  of  his  brethren 
having  the  same  commission. 

The  same  remark  may  be  made  with  reference  to  the 
individual  Bishop  in  his  relation  to  the  body  of  the 
Episcopate  ;  only  it  is  to  be  observed  that  it  presumes 
the  same  conformity  to  the  fundamental  laws  of  Christ's 
kingdom  as  it  presumed  in  the  original  Apostles. 

The  important  principles  in  this  connection  are  :  ist, 
the  unity  of  the  Apostolate,  or  Episcopate,  considered  as 
the  office  which  Christ  established  for  the  government 
of  His  Church  ;  2dly,  the  official  equality  of  the  Apos- 
tles, or  Bishops,  considered  as  individuals  having  each 
an  undivided  equal  share  in  the  powers  lodged  in 
that  office  ;  and,  3dly,  their  subordination,  not  individ- 
ually to  each  other,  but  individually  to  the  collective 
body. 

Christ  gave  the  commission  of  authority  not  to  one, 
but  to  all  the  Apostles.  That  He  addressed  St.  Peter  on 
one  occasion,  promising  to  him  by  name  a  commission  to 
govern  His  Church,  may  be  admitted  ;  but  that  this  does 
not  derogate  from  the  joint  commission  and  equal 
authority  of  all  the  Apostles,  appears  from  the  facts  : 
ist,  that  the  same  commission  promised  to  St.  Peter  (St. 
Matt.  xvi.  19)  is  also  promised  to  the  other  Apostles  (St. 
Matt,  xviii.  18),  and  is  afterwards  given  to  all  the  Apostles 
(St.  John  xx.  22,  23)  ;  and  if  to  St.  Peter  at  all,  then  only 
at  this  time  and  in  connection  with  the  other  Apostles  ; 
and,  2d,  that  in  the  other  gifts  of  authority,  e.g.,  to  cele- 


LIMITATION.  115 

brate  the  Eucharist  and  to  disciple  and  baptize  all  nations, 
all  are  included. 

2.  The  Holy  Spirit,  by  the  action  of  the  Apostles  whom 
He  inspired,  appears  to  have  prescribed  two  further 
limitations  to  the  exercise  of  their  supreme  authority. 

A.  The  first  of  these  was  the  duty  of  consulting  with 
inferior  orders  and  laity. 

In  the  account  given  in  the  Book  of  the  Acts,  of  the 
coming  together  of  the  Apostles  to  consider  a  certain 
matter,  it  appears  that  the  Elders  were  associated  with 
them,  and  that  the  decree  which  they  made  was  put  forth 
with  the  consent  of  the  whole  Church,  i.e.t  of  the  whole 
Church  at  Jerusalem  ;  from  which  some  have  inferred 
that  the  laity  also  were  concerned  in  the  formal  assent 
to  this  decree.*  It  does  not  follow,  however,  that  the 
laity  or  Elders  had  a  joint  authority  with  the  Apostles. 
This  council  was  of  a  general  or  universal  character, 
both  in  respect  to  the  operation  of  its  decrees  and  in 
respect  to  the  Apostles,  who  were  the  joint  and  several 
governors  of  the  whole  Church.  The  Elders  and  laity, 
so  far  as  appears  from  the  New  Testament,  have  no 
power,  as  such,  to  make  laws  or  set  forth  decrees.  What- 
ever power  they  had  must  have  been  derived  from  the 
Apostles,  or  else  have  been  of  a  representative  character, 
as  conferred  by  the  consent  and  authorization  of  the 
Disciples  in  general.  But  there  appears  to  have  been  no 
representation  of  the  Church  at  large  by  these  Elders  and 
laity.  There  was  certainly  nothing  more  than  a  repre- 
sentation of  the  Church  at  Jerusalem,  even  if  so  much  as 
this  can  be  supposed.  And  as  for  authority  derived  from 
the  Apostles  to  make  laws  for  the  Church,  there  appears 


*  See  Archbishop  Potter,  ch.  v.  7,  "  Power  of  Making  Laws." 


3l6  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

no  evidence  of  it  here  or  elsewhere.  The  whole  author- 
ity, as  we  have  seen,  was  vested  in  the  Apostles  ;  but 
they  had  a  right,  and  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  they  seem  to  have  considered  it  their  duty,  to  take 
counsel  of  Clergy  and  laity  who  were  subject  to  their 
authority.  This,  no  doubt,  was  on  the  principle,  afterwards 
stated  by  St.  Paul,  of  the  unity  of  the  body  ;  that  all 
were  members  one  of  another,  and  that  none  could  affirm 
that  he  had  no  need  of  the  others  ;*  and  on  the  further 
principle  laid  down  by  St.  Peter  for  the  Elders  (calling 
himself  an  Elder  at  this  time,  as  if  to  show  that  the  prin- 
ciple applied  as  well  to  Apostles),  that  they  should  take 
the  oversight  of  the  people,  not  as  being  lords  over  God's 
heritage,  but  as  being  ensamples  to  the  flock. f 

B.  Another  limitation  of  their  authority  appears  to 
have  been  adopted  by  the  Apostles  acting  under  the 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  had  reference  to  the 
field  within  which  their  ministry  should  be  exercised. 

The  Apostles  had  a  common  mission  from  Christ  to 
go  into  all  the  world,  but  it  was  their  province  under 
the  Holy  Ghost  to  settle  the  principle  upon  which  that 
common  mission  was  to  be  fulfilled  ;  and  in  fulfilling  it 
they  went  not  all  together,  nor  did  they  carry  on  their 
work  each  one  without  regard  to  the  other.  They  sepa- 
rated, and  adopted  limits  for  their  work  in  the  ministry. 
Dean  Jackson  seems  to  attribute  this  distribution  of 
labors  to  Christ  himself,  saying  :  "  Their  opinion  is 
very  probable  who  think  that  every  Apostle  had  his 
peculiar  circuit  allotted  him  by  Christ,  and  that  they 
did  dispose  themselves  into  twelve  several  parts  of  the 
world."  Perhaps,  however,  the  last  half  of  this  sentence 

*  I  Cor.  xii.  20,  21.  f  i  St.  Pet.  v.  1-3. 


LIMITA  TION.  1 1 7 

states  what  he  particularly  meant  to  affirm  ;  his  intention 
being  to  indicate  the  distribution,  rather  than  to  dis- 
tinguish between  the  direction  of  Christ  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  No  doubt  the  direction  was  from  Christ,  even  if 
through  the  Holy  Spirit  ;  but  the  evidence  of  it  appears 
not  in  the  recorded  words  of  Christ,  but  in  the  acts  of  the 
inspired  Apostles.* 

Generally  the  field  of  work  which  they  occupied  was 
denoted  by  place,  as  when  Saul  and  Barnabas  were  sepa- 
rated for  a  certain  work,  going  to  Seleucia,  Cyprus,  and 
Salamis  ;  f  Barnabas  afterwards  going  to  Cyprus  again, 
and  St.  Paul  to  Syria  and  Cilicia.J  So,  too,  the  Apostles 
"  sent  Peter  and  John  "  on  a  special  mission  to  Samaria.  § 
And  so,  too,  St.  Paul,  writing  to  the  Corinthians,  seems 
to  justify  his  right  to  preach  the  Gospel  to  them  accord- 
ing to  the  measure  of  the  rule  or  line  which  God  had 
distributed  to  the  Apostles  ;  a  measure  which  in  his  case 
reached  even  unto  them.|| 

In  one  notable  division  of  work,  however,  the  mission 
seems  to  have  been  directed  towards  different  classes  of 
people,  irrespective  of  their  dwelling  place  ;  the  Gospel 
of  the  Circumcision  being  committed  to  St.  Peter,  and 
that  of  the  Uncircumcision  to  St.  Paul,^[  an  arrangement 


*  See  Jackson's  Works,  Book  XII.  ch.  viii.  §  5.  See  also  in 
the  same  place  his  comment  on  Acts  i.  24,  that  the  Greek  may  bear 
another  sense  than  that  commonly  put  upon  it  :  "to  wit,  that  he 
that  took  part  of  the  ministration  and  Apostleship  from  which  Judas 
had  fallen,  might  be  sent  that  circuit  which  Judas,  had  he  not  fallen, 
should  have  gone."  He  refers  to  Mason  (Lib.  I.  ch.  iv.  p.  24)  ; 
but  Mason  does  not  here  say  what  Jackson  says,  though  what  he  does 
say  is  not  inconsistent  with  Jackson's  curious  and  interesting  com- 
ment. 

f  Acts  xiii.  2-4.  \  Acts  xv.  39-41.  §  Acts  viii.  14. 

|  2  Cor.  x.  ii,  16.  TT  Gal.  ii.  7. 


"  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

obviously  temporary  in  its  nature,  caused  by  the  remark- 
able tenacity  of  the  Jews  to  their  national  customs,  and 
in  accordance  with  the  special  object  for  which  St.  Paul 
received  his  Apostolate,  yet  not  so  exclusively  excep- 
tional as  to  be  without  a  certain  venerable  precedent  in 
primitive  times,  nor  without  the  hope  of  a  possible  use 
in  the  healing  of  schisms  in  a  country  wherein  the  eccle- 
siastical estate  is  free  from  all  entanglement  with  the 
civil,  and  whose  citizens  have  been  gathered  out  of  the 
Churches  of  all  nations — provided  the  vtime  shall  ever 
come  when  all  these  Churches,  retaining  their  own  indi- 
vidualities and  pious  opinions,  can  occupy  the  really 
Catholic  ground  in  respect  of  the  essential  principles  of 
£aith  and  order.* 


*  "  Yet  it  must  be  observed,"  remarks  Bingham,  "  that  as  the 
great  end  and  design  of  this  rule  [that  two  Bishops  should  not  be 
ordained  in  one  city]  was  to  prevent  schism  and  preserve  the  peace 
and  unity  of  the  Church,  so,  on  the  other  hand,  when  it  manifestly 
appeared  that  the  allowing  of  two  Bishops  in  one  city,  in  some  cer- 
tain circumstances  and  critical  junctures,  was  the  only  way  to  put  an 
end  to  some  long  and  inveterate  schism,  in  that  case  there  were  some 
Catholic  Bishops  who  were  willing  to  take  a  partner  into  their  throne, 
and  share  the  Episcopal  power  and  dignity  between  them.  Thus 
Meletius,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  made  the  proposal  to  Paulinus,  his 
antagonist,  who,  though  he  was  of  the  same  faith,  yet  kept  up  a 
Church  divided  in  communion  from  him.  I  shall  relate  the  proposal 
in  the  words  of  Theodoret.  '  Meletius,'  says  he, '  the  meekest  of  men, 
thus  friendly  and  mildly  addressed  himself  to  Paulinus  :  "Forasmuch 
as  the  Lord  hath  committed  to  me  the  care  of  these  sheep,  and  thou 
hast  received  the  care  of  others,  and  all  the  sheep  agree  in  one  com- 
mon faith,  let  us  join  our  flocks,  my  friend,  and  dispute  no  longer 
about  primacy  and  government,  but  let  us  feed  the  sheep  in  common, 
and  bestow  a  common  care  upon  them.  And,  if  it  be  the  throne  that 
creates  the  dispute,  I  will  try  to  take  away  this  cause  also.  We  will 
lay  the  Holy  Gospel  upon  the  seat,  and  then  each  of  us  take  his  place 


LIMITATION.  119 

The  general  rule,  of  course,  is  that  the  field  of  work  is 
within  a  certain  place,  and  to  the  examples  already  ad- 
duced as  indicating  this  rule  may  be  added  the  case  of 
St.  James  the  Less,  whom  tradition  calls  the  Bishop  of 
Jerusalem,  and  of  the  recognition  of  whose  superior  posi- 
tion in  that  city  there  seems  to  be  good  evidence  in  the 
Book  of  the  Acts.  In  the  council  of  Acts  xv.  he  seems 
to  hold  the  position  of  presiding  officer  ;  when  St.  Peter 
was  delivered  by  the  angel  he  tells  his  friends  to  show 
these  things  to  James  and  to  the  brethren  ;  *  and  when 
St.  Paul  returned  to  Jerusalem  he  went  in  unto  James, 
all  the  Elders  being  present  with  him.f 

These  examples  are  sufficient  to  exhibit  the  principle 
on  which  the  common  mission  of  Christ  was  fulfilled  by 
the  Apostles.  They  go  to  the  extent  of  showing  that 
while  the  Apostles  were  all  equal  in  their  authority,  yet 
they  did  not  assume  to  exercise  their  authority  equally  in 
all  places  ;  but  either  by  assignment  of  the  College,  or  in 
the  exercise  of  individual  judgment,  tacitly  sanctioned  by 
the  College,  or  by  special  direction  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
they  went  into  separate  fields  of  work.  We  do  not  find, 
so  far  as  the  Scriptural  account  goes,  that  the  Apostles 
were  so  limited  that  they  were  resident  as  Bishops  subse- 
quently were,  except  in  the  case  of  St.  James.  Even  in 


on  either  side  of  it.  And  if  I  die  first,  you  shall  take  the  government 
of  the  flock  alone  ;  but  if  it  be  your  fate  to  die  before  me,  then  I  will 
feed  them  according  to  my  power."  Thus  spake  the  Divine  Meletius,' 
says  our  author,  '  lovingly  and  meekly,  but  Paulinus  would  not  acqui- 
esce nor  hearken  to  him.' 

"  We  meet  with  another  such  proposal,  made  to  the  Donatist 
Bishops  by  all  the  Catholic  Bishops  of  Africa  assembled  together, 
at  the  opening  of  the  famous  conference  at  Carthage." — Christian 
Antiquities,  Book  II.  ch.  xiii.  sec.  2. 

*  Acts  xii.  17.  f  Acts  xxi.  18. 


120  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

this  case  the  settlement  depends  chiefly  upon  the  evidence 
of  traditional  history,  although  there  are  sufficient  Scrip- 
tural grounds  for  the  acceptance  of  the  Church  tradition. 
In  the  case  of  other  Apostles  we  find  such  tradition, 
though  without  the  same  support ;  and  this  tradition 
plainly  sustains  the  principle  of  the  distribution  of  the 
common  mission  into  special  fields  of  work,  though 
apparently  it  does  not  indicate  such  permanent  residence 
as  appears  in  those  who  succeeded  them,  except  as  it 
might  be  temporarily,  or  possibly  at  the  close  of  life,  after 
the  completion  of  a  circuit  of  what  we  would  now  call 
missionary  labor.  St.  Peter  is  said  to  have  resided  in 
Antioch,  and  is  claimed  to  have  resided  at  Rome,  though 
this  has  been  largely  disputed.  St.  John  is  said  to  have 
resided  at  Ephesus  after  his  return  from  banishment. 
But,  however  all  this'might  have  been,  it  is  certain  that 
the  Apostles  were  not  so  limited  to  special  districts  as 
Bishops  are,  and  it  seems  equally  certain  that  the  prin- 
ciple of  separate  fields  of  work  was  applied  by  them  to 
their  successors  with  the  condition  of  residence,  Timothy 
being  placed  at  Ephesus  ;  Titus  at  Crete  ;  the  seven 
angels,  to  whom  St.  John  delivered  the  message  of  the 
Spirit,  to  the  seven  Churches,  each  being  in  charge  of  the 
Church  in  his  own  city,  as  the  Scripture  shows  ;  and  St. 
Mark  having  been  settled  at  Alexandria,  as  tradition 
affirms  ;  and  such  has  ever  since  been  the  rule.  So  that, 
as  Archbishop  Potter  says,  "  If  we  descend  to  the  next 
ages,  there  will  scarce  be  found  any  testimony  for  Epis- 
copacy, which  does  not  prove  that  Bishops  were  limited 
to  a  certain  district  in  the  ordinary  exercise  of  their 
office."  * 


*  "Church  Government,"  ch.  v.  pt.  4. 


LIMITATION.  121 

From  all  of  which  it  appears  that,  according  to  the 
constitution  of  the  Church,  as  it  was  settled  by  Christ 
and  the  Apostles  acting  under  Divine  direction,  the 
authority  of  the  Apostolic  or  Episcopal  office,  although 
supreme,  is  yet  to  be  exercised  subject  to  certain  limita- 
tions, which  may  be  thus  re-stated  : 

1.  It  must  be  exercised  in  accordance  with  the  law  of 
God. 

2.  It  isLfionfined  to  the  Church. 

3.  It   involves   the   subordination   of    the    individual 
Bishop  to  the  determination  of  his  brethren  of  the  Epis- 
copate given  by  common   consent  and  conformably  to 
the  fundamental  laws  of  Christ's  kingdom. 

4.  It  is  toj>e  exercised,  not  tyrannically,  but  with  due 
regard  to  the  inferior  members  of  the  Body  of  Christ. 

5.  It  is  to  be  exercised    by   individual    Bishops,    not 
indiscriminately  everywhere,  but  in  places  to  which  they 
are  duly  appointed. 

Besides  the  limitations  which  are  thus  classified,  the 
general  principle  is  to  be  noted  that  the  authority  of  the 
Bishops  as  successors  to  the  Apostolic  Office  does  not  ex- 
tend to  the  overthrow  of  that  which  the  Apostles  estab- 
lished as  part  of  the  permanent  order  of  the  Church. 
And  as  between  various  Apostolic  regulations,  the  test  of 
permanence  is  the  action  of  the  Church  in  the  succeeding 
ages,  either  accepting  and  using,  or  abandoning  what  the 
Apostles  ordained. 

The  value  of  this  test  does  not  depend  upon  any  au- 
thority in  the  Church  to  set  aside  matters  of  Apostolic 
rule,  but  upon  the  importance  of  the  evidence  which  the 
action  of  the  Church  in  those  ages  furnishes  as  to  the 
intent  of  the  Apostles  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit  Who  guided 
them.  Whatever  the  Apostles  ordained  as  matter  of  local 


122  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

or  temporary  importance  would  be  so  regarded  by  the 
Church,  and  would  not  long  survive  the  reason  which 
required  it.  Whatever  the  Apostles  ordained  as  part  of 
the  standing  order  of  the  Church,  would  be  so  received 
by  the  Church,  and  would  survive  and  be  handed  down 
to  subsequent  ages  ;  as,  for  instance,  the  Presbyterate 
and  the  Diaconate  come  to  us  not  merely  as  Apostolic 
ordinances,  but  as  Apostolic  ordinances  which  the  Apostles 
and  the  Holy  Ghost  intended  to  be  permanent.  They 
were  accepted  and  used  by  the  Church,  and  handed  down 
to  subsequent  ages  with  the  concurrent  testimony  that 
they  were  a  part  of  the  permanent  or  constitutional  order 
of  the  Church,  no  more  lawfully  capable  of  essential 
alteration  than  the  Episcopal  Office,  or  the  matter  of  the 
Faith  itself. 


JURISDICTION.  123 


PROPOSITION    XIX. 

The  existence  of  limitations  upon  the  exercise  of  the  au- 
thority of  the  Apostolic  or  Episcopal  Office  implies  the 
distinction  between  power  and  right,  which  applies  to 
ministerial  functions  of  every  degree.  The  power  of 
order  in  general  is  to  be  distinguished  from  the  right 
to  exercise  that  power.  The  lawful  right  to  exercise 
the  power  of  order  is  jurisdiction. 

SINCE  the  right  to  exercise  power  is  generally  limited 
to  some  place,  the  place  is  often  considered  as  the  juris- 
diction ;  but,  properly  speaking,  jurisdiction  is,  in  itself, 
the  right  to  exercise  power  (a  jure  dicendd). 

Some  writers  distinguish  jurisdiction  into  two  kinds, 
habitual  and  actual ;  *  by  which,  however,  they  mean  the 
possession  of  power  and  the  right  to  exercise  power. 
Habitual  jurisdiction  is  equivalent  to  the  power  which  a 
Bishop  has  by  admission  into  his  order.  He  is  said  to 
have  actual  jurisdiction  when  he  may  lawfully  exercise 
this  power,  either  by  virtue  of  due  appointment  to  a 
certain  field,  or  by  consent  of  the  Bishop  of  another 
diocese.  Others  state  the  distinction  as  between  order 
and  mission. 

Palmer  illustrates  this  as  follows  :  "  If  a  regularly  or- 
dained Priest  should  celebrate  the  Eucharist  in  the  Church 
of  another,  contrary  to  the  will  of  that  person  and  of  the 
Bishop,  he  would  have  the  power  of  consecrating  the 
Eucharist — it  actually  would  be  consecrated — but  he 
would  not  have  the  right  of  consecrating  ;  or,  in  other 


*  Blunt's  "  Theo.  and  Hist.  Diet.,"  title,  Jurisdiction,  and  authors 
cited. 


124  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

words,  he  .would  not  have  mission  for  that  act.  If  a 
Bishop  should  enter  the  diocese  of  another  Bishop,  and, 
contrary  to  his  will,  ordain  one  of  his  Deacons  to  the 
Priesthood,  the  intruding  Bishop  would  have  the  power, 
but  not  the  right  of  acting.  In  fact,  mission  fails  in  all 
schismatical,  heretical,  and  uncanonical  acts,  because  God 
cannot  have  given  any  man  the  right  to  act  in  opposition 
to  those  laws  which  He  Himself  has  enacted,  or  which 
the  Apostles  and  their  successors  have  instituted  for  the 
orderly  and  peaceable  regulation  of  the  Church.  He  is 
not  the  author  of  confusion,  but  of  peace,  as  in  all  the 
Churches  of  the  saints.  .  .  .  Mission  can  only  be 
given  for  acts  in  accordance  with  the  Divine  and  ecclesi- 
astical laws,  the  latter  of  which  derive  their  authority 
from  the  former,  and  it  is  conferred  by  valid  ordination. 
.  .  .  Should  the  ordination  be  valid,  and  yet  uncanon- 
ical, mission  does  not  take  effect  until  the  suspension  im- 
posed by  the  canons  on  the  person  ordained  is  in  some 
lawful  manner  removed."  * 

The  terms  "mission  "and  "jurisdiction  "  are  sometimes 
so  used  as  to  lead  to  confusion.  There  is  a  sense  in  which 
they  are  to  be  distinguished  ;  there  is  also  a  sense  in 
which  they  mean  the  same.  Mission  is  to  be  distinguished 
from  jurisdiction  when  the  latter  word  is  used  in  its  limited 
signification,  in  which  case  the  word  "mission"  has  also 
a  limited  meaning,  having  reference  to  the  canonical  or 
lawful  sending  of  a  person  ordained  to  a  certain  see  or 
duty.  Although  mission  in  its  wider  sense  be  received  by 


*  "Antiquities  of  English  Ritual,"  II.  pp.  247,  248,  by  the  authorof 
the  "Treatise  of  the  Church  of  Christ. "  and  other  works  of  great 
value  to  the  student  of  Church  polity — the  Rev.  William  Palmer  of 
Worcester  College  ;  not  to  be  confounded  with  Rev.  William  Palmer 
(the  Deacon)  of  Magdalen. 


JURISDICTION.  125 

valid  ordination,  yet  one  may  be  validly  ordained  without 
receiving  mission  in  the  limited  sense.  If  a  Bishop  were 
to  be  consecrated  without  having  a  see  assigned  to  him, 
or  with  assignment  to  a  see  already  full,  although  validly 
ordained,  his  mission  would  be  defective,  and  thpse_ 
whom  he,  with  other  Bishops  similarly  situated,  might 
consecrate  would  have  the  like  defective  mission.  This 
is  the  case  oLthe  Bishops  of  the  Roman  schism  in  Eng- 
land. Supposing  their  ordination  to  be  valid,  they  lack 
mission  because  they  have  been  ordained  to  jurisdictions 
already  occupied,  and  minister  contrary  to  the  canons  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  in  opposition  to  other  Bishops  law- 
fully settled  in  the  same  place.  By  consequence  their 
Priests  also  lack  mission  ;  and  the  same  remark,  of  course, 
applies  to  all  the  emissaries  of  the  Roman  See  who  have 
served  opposing  altars  in  that  country  from  the  time  of 
the  first  withdrawal  of  the  Papal  adherents  from  the 
communion  of  the  Church  of  England,  in  the  reign  of 
Elizabeth,  up  to  the  comparatively  recent  formal  estab- 
lishment of  the  hierarchy  there.* 

It  is  sometimes  said  by  those  who  accept  this  state- 
ment so  far  as  England  is  concerned,  or  who  fail  to  make 
a  satisfactory  answer  to  it,  that  the  position  cannot  be 
maintained  in  the  United  States  of  America,  since  in  some 
portions  of  that  civil  jurisdiction  there  has  been  a  prior 
occupation  by  the  Bishops  of  the  Roman  Communion. 
The  reason  assigned  is,  however,  by  no  means  to  be  taken 
for  granted.  Of  the  thirteen  States  which  originally 
constituted  the  United  States,  there  was  none  that  had 


*  Cf.  Seabury's  "  Haddan  on  Apostolic  Succession,''  pp.  106-111. 
The  student  should  read  on  the  whole  of  this  question  Bishop  Bram- 
hall's  "  Just  Vindication  of  the  Church  of  England  from  the  charge 
of  criminous  schism."  Works,  Anglo-Catholic  Library,  vol.  i. 


126  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

not  previously  been  a  colony  of  England,  and  as  such 
occupied  by  the  Church  of  England.  The  colonies  were 
an  extension  of  England  into  America ;  and  if  the  adher- 
ents to  the  Papacy  were  in  schism  in  England,  it  is 
difficult  to  understand  how  that  state  of  things  could  be 
changed  by  being  transported  over  the  ocean.*  What 
constituted  the  Roman  schism  (in  this  aspect  of  it)  was 
the  intrusion  into  a  country  where  the  order  of  the 
Church  was  already  settled,  and  where  the  faith  and 
sacraments  of  Christ  were  guarded  by  a  lawful  succes- 
sion of  Bishops.  The  same  order  existed  in  the  colonies. 
With  whatever  imperfection  of  administration,  resulting 
from  the  delay  of  sending  Bishops  to  reside  in  the 
colonies,  this  order  was  lawfully  and  canonically  settled, 
parishes  and  missions  being  established  under  care  of 
regularly  ordained  Priests  amenable  to,  and  acting  under, 
the  jurisdiction  of  rightly  and  duly  consecrated  Bishops 
in  England.  And  when,  after  the  Revolutionary  War, 
these  colonies  became  independent  States,  and  resident 
Bishops  were  supplied  to  the  members  of  the  Church  in 
those  States  from  the  same  lawful  succession,  although 
their  jurisdiction  was,  properly  speaking,  each  one  within 
his  own  State,  yet  their  position  enabled  them  to  furnish, 
and  in  fact  they  did  furnish,  to  the  members  of  the 
Church  in  all  the  States  such  Episcopal  ministrations  as 
were  needful  for  the  perpetuation  and  extension  of  that 
Church,  and  for  the  preservation  of  it  in  the  unity  of 
the  Catholic  communion.  They  associated  themselves 
together,  and  took  order  for  the  continuance  of  their 
succession,  and  for  the  oversight  of  the  Church  in  all  the 
States  of  the  Union. 


*  Palmer,  "  Church  of  Christ,"  i.  305 


JURISDICTION.  127 

The  introduction  of  the  Roman  Episcopate  into  the 
United  States  was,  therefore,  as  unnecessary  in  that 
country  as  had  been  the  intrusion  of  the  Papal  emis- 
saries into  England.  Due  provision,  in  accordance  with 
the  requirements  of  the  Catholic  canons,  was  made  for 
the  perpetuation  of  the  succession  of  the  Anglican  Epis- 
copate before  the  succession  of  the  Roman  Episcopate 
was  introduced.  In  the  State  of  Maryland  it  is  true  that 
the  Roman  Bishop  Carroll  was  consecrated  in  1790,  and 
the  Anglo-American  Bishop  Claggett  in  1792.  If  the 
States  had  stood  alone  and  apart  from  each  other,  the 
question  of  mere  priority  of  Episcopal  occupation — set- 
ting aside  all  other  questions — would  in  that  single  State 
be  decided  in  favor  of  the  Roman  succession.  But  the 
States  did  not  stand  alone,  either  civilly  or  ecclesiastically, 
but  in  both  kinds  were  engaged  in  a  common  union, 
whereby  they  became  members  one  of  another  ;  so  that  a 
defect  in  either  might,  in  accordance  with  the  terms  of 
their  union,  be  supplied  from  the  common  government 
of  all.  The  settlement  of  Bishop  Carroll  in  Maryland 
was,  therefore,  an  intrusion  into  a  place  which  was  already 
under  the  care  of  a  lawful  Episcopate,  and  in  accordance 
with  that  care  was  designed  to  be,  and  soon  after  actually 
was,  provided  with  a  resident  Bishop  of  its  own.  There 
was  here  practically  as  much  a  setting  up  of  altar  against 
altar  as  there  would  have  been  had  Claggett  actually 
been  first  consecrated  ;  for  the  place  was  a  recognized 
Diocesan  jurisdiction,  part  and  parcel  of  a  system  of 
Diocesan  jurisdictions — the  Church  in  the  State  of  Mary- 
land being  equally  with  the  Church  in  other  States  of 
the  Union  represented  as  such  in  the  Ecclesiastical 
Union,  each  State  being  regarded  as  the  field  of  a  dis- 
tinct Episcopal  jurisdiction. 


128  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

If  the  question  of  schismatical  intrusion  depended 
upon  right  of  priority  merely,  it  would  be  fairly  decided 
by  the  fact  that  Maryland  was,  at  the  time  of  the  entrance 
of  the  Roman  Bishop,  one  member  of  an  Episcopal 
system,  having  the  right  to  the  succession  provided  by 
that  system,  and  having^  the  ability  and  intent  to  obtain 
it.  And  if  we  look  beyond  the  case  of  the  original 
members  of  this  system,  to  the  case  of  those  States  and 
Territories  which  were  afterwards  added  to  it,  and  some 
of  which  were  at  the  time  of  their  accession,  or  had  been 
prior  to  it,  inhabited  by  those  who  acknowledged  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Roman  See,  it  is  not  beyond  the 
bounds  of  reason  to  regard  them  in  the  same  light — as 
becoming  by  their  accession  to  the  civil  Union  of  right 
entitled  to  the  Episcopal  oversight  belonging  to  the 
ecclesiastical  system  which  had  been  established  in  con- 
sequence of  the  establishment  of  the  civil  system,  and 
was  designed  to  be  coextensive  with  it,  and  was  under 
obligation  to  extend  throughout  its  limits.  So  that  the 
Roman  hierarchy  set  up  schismatically  and  unnecessarily 
in  Maryland,  could  not,  in  its  extension  into  other  States 
of  the  Union,  whether  the  inhabitants  of  these  had  pre- 
viously been  under  the  Roman  obedience  or  not,  be  other 
than  schismatic  and  unnecessary  in  those  States  as  well 
as  in  Maryland — seeing  that  they  were  all  equally  grafted 
into  a  canonical  system  of  Episcopal  oversight. 

It  may,  indeed,  be  said  that  the  Episcopal  oversight 
thus  provided  was  lacking  in  proper  qualifications  for  its 
exercise,  or  that  the  Roman  Episcopate  was  better  suited 
to  the  requirements  of  those  who  had  been  accustomed 
to  Roman  usage.  This,  however,  is  to  present  an  en- 
tirely different  question  from  that  of  priority  of  occu- 
pation ;  and  as  to  this  point  there  appears  to  be  no 


JURISDICTION.  129 

sufficient  reason  for  giving  away  the  position  that  the 
system  of  Episcopal  oversight  applicable  to  all  who 
dwelt  within  the  civil  Union  was  lawfully  and  in  fact 
established  within  that  Union  before  the  system  of  the 
Roman  hierarchy  derived  from  Carroll  was  introduced, 
even  supposing  that  that  hierarchy  was  in  other  respects 
duly  and  orderly  established  in  accordance  with  the 
Catholic  canons,  which  would  be  somewhat  difficult  of 
proof.* 


*  Pope  Pius  VI.,  by  Bull  of  November  6,  1789,  appointed  the  Rev. 
Dr.  John  Carroll  Bishop  of  Baltimore,  "granting  to  him  the  faculty 
of  receiving  the  rite  of  consecration  from  any  Catholic  Bishop  hold- 
ing communion  with  the  Apostolic  See,  assisted  by  two  ecclesiastics 
vested  with  some  dignity,  in  case  that  two  Bishops  cannot  be  had, 
first  having  taken  the  usual  oath  according  to  the  Roman  Pontifical." 
— "A  Short  Account  of  the  Establishment  of  the  new  See  of  Balti- 
more." Printed  by  J.  P.  Coghlan,  London,  1790,  page  17. 

"  Upon  the  receipt  of  his  Bulls  from  Rome  he  immediately  re- 
paired to  England,  where  his  person  and  merit  were  well  known,  and 
presented  himself  for  consecration  to  the  Right  Rev.  Dr.  Charles 
Walmsley,  Bishop  of  Rama,  senior  Vicar  Apostolical  of  the  Catholic 
religion  in  this  kingdom.  By  invitation  of  Thomas  Weld,  Esq.,  the 
consecration  of  the  new  Bishop  was  performed  during  a  solemn  high 
mass  in  the  elegant  chapel  at  Lullworth  Castle,  on  Sunday,  the  I5th 
day  of  August,  1790,  being  the  feast  of  the  Assumption  of  the  Blessed 
Virgin  Mary,  and  the  munificence  of  that  gentleman  omitted  no  cir- 
cumstance which  could  possibly  add  dignity  to  so  venerable  a  cere- 
mony. The  two  Prelates  were  attended  by  their  respective  assistant 
priests  and  acolytes,  according  to  the  rubric  of  the  Roman  Pontifical, 
etc." — /£.,  pp.  3,  4. 

Referring  to  this  event  among  others,  in  commenting  upon  the 
frequent  occurrence  in  the  Roman  practice  of  consecration  by  a  sin- 
gle Bishop,  Palmer  remarks  : 

"  Dr.  John  Carroll,  the  first  titular  Bishop  of  Baltimore  in  America, 
from  whom  the  whole  Romish  hierarchy  of  the  United  States  derive 
their  Orders,  was  consecrated  by  the  same  Dr.  Walmsley  at  Lull- 


130  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

It  must  be  allowed,  however,  that  the  question  of  pri- 
ority of  occupation  is  not  the  only,  nor  indeed  the 
really  controlling,  question  in  regard  to  the  jurisdiction 
claimed.  It  is  entirely  understood  that  however  it  may 
be  convenient  to  claim  a  priority  of  occupation  for  the 
adherents  of  the  Papacy,  yet  that  claim  is  a  mere  incident 
to  the  general  repudiation  of  all  mission  on  the  part  of 
the  Anglican  Episcopate,  even  if  the  actual  validity  of  its 
consecrations  be  admitted  ;  nor  would  the  Romans  any 
more  regard  the  Anglican  Episcopate  than  would  the 
Anglicans,  under  similar  conditions,  regard  the  so-called 
Episcopate  of  the  Methodists.  The  question,  therefore, 
that  lies  back  of  the  question  of  jurisdiction  by  reason 
of  possession  of  particular  sees,  is  the  question  of  mis- 
sion in  its  wider  sense,  as  involving  the  lawful  right  to 
use  the  power  of  order  at  all  ;  the  controversy  in  re- 
gard to  which  is  not  affected  by  the  conditions  of  resi- 
dence in  this  country,  but  has  been  always  waged  in, 
England  as  well  as  here.  On  the  Roman  side,  the 
Anglican  mission  is  denied  on  various  grounds  which 
must  be  separately  considered.  On  the  Anglican  side, 
the  Roman  mission  has  been  repudiated  not  only  on  the 
ground  of  intrusion,  but  on  the  much  broader  ground 
that  the  Roman  authority  imposes  sinful  terms  of  Com- 
munion, and  that  a  mission  which  empowers  the  min- 
istry— even  if  that  ministry  be  validly  ordained — to 
require  belief,  as  necessary  to  salvation,  in  doctrines  new 
in  the  Church,  and  incapable  of  proof  from  Holy  Scrip- 


worth,  August  15,  1790.  We  have,  indeed,  no  reason  to  think  that 
Dr.  Walmsley  himself  was  consecrated  by  more  than  one  Bishop. 
It  seems  as  if  the  Roman  Pontiffs  had  no  difficulty  in  giving  permis- 
sion for  such  ordinations  in  foreign  missions." — "  Church  of  Christ,' 
part  vi.,  ch.  xi.,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  471-2,  ed.  1839. 


JURISDIC  TION.  1 3 1 

ture,  putting  these  opinions  of  men  upon  the  same 
ground  as  the  Articles  of  the  Catholic  Creed,  is  no  mis- 
sion in  the  proper  sense  of  that  word,  and  is  inherently 
incapable  of  sustaining  jurisdiction  in  any  place.  This 
is  the  real  question  between  the  ministry  of  the  Anglican 
and  of  the  Roman  Communion.  On  the  part  of  the 
Roman  Ministry  the  course  pursued  has  always  been 
that  of  aggression,  involving  the  uncompromising  re- 
quirement of  absolute  submission  to  the  Roman  juris- 
diction wherever  planted.  On  the  part  of  the  Anglican 
Ministry  the  course  pursued  has  been  that  of  self- 
defence  ;  no  disposition — at  least  until  of  late  years — 
having  been  shown  to  carry  out  to  its  logical  conclusion 
this  principle  of  a  Mission  forfeited  by  the  confusion  of 
opinion  with  faith  into  one  common  tyranny.  But  the 
principle  is  sound  and  just.  The  Bishops  of  the  Church 
of  Christ  are  to  be  successors  to  the  Apostles,  not  only  in 
order,  but  also  in  faith.  And  if  those  who  have  received 
a  valid  succession  of  order  have  succeeded  to  a  corrupt 
faith,  and  require  of  those  who  will  be  saved  the  same 
acceptance  of  questionable  and  new  doctrines  as  of  the 
undoubted  Catholic  verities,  there  is  no  mission  of 
Christ  which  can  sustain  such  requirements ;  *  and  what- 
ever may  be  said  in  regard  to  the  advisability  of  carry- 
ing the  war  into  the  camp  of  an  enemy,  there  can  be  no 
question  as  to  the  right  of  defending  the  home. 

To  return,  however,  to  the  consideration  of  the  general 
subject,  mission  and  jurisdiction,  in  the  broad  and  full 
sense  of  the  words,  mean  the  same  thing  ;  and  in  this 
sense  they  follow  upon -a  valid  ordination.  Where  the 

*  See  the  Creed  of  Pius  IV.,  and  the  decrees  of  the  Immaculate 
Conception  and  of  Papal  Infallibility.  Cf.  Percival's  "  Roman 
Schism,"  illustrated. 


132  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

power  of  order  is  conferred,  there  is  also  conferred  the 
general  mission  for  the  diffusing  of  the  Gospel  through- 
out the  world.  In  this  sense  the  Apostles  possessed  uni- 
versal mission  and  jurisdiction  ;  and  in  the  like  sense  the 
Bishops,  as  successors  of  the  Apostles,  possess  universal 
mission  and  jurisdiction.  They  have  the  power,  and  the 
right  to  exercise  the  power,  which  those  to  whom  they 
are  sent  are  bound  to  recognize,  provided  it  is  exercised 
in  accordance  with  the  canons  of  the  Church  and  in  the 
support  of  the  faith  of  Christ.  "  Every  Bishop  has  uni- 
versal mission  and  jurisdiction  by  virtue  of  his  integral 
share  in  the  Apostolic  office  and  commission  conveyed  to 
him  by  consecration.  This  being  premised,  the  question 
of  local  mission  and  jurisdiction  becomes  comparatively 
an  easy  matter."* 

The  result  of  these  distinctions  seems,  on  the  whole,  to 
be  this  :  valid  consecration  confers  universal  mission, 
which  when  lawfully  localized  confers  jurisdiction  in  the 
limited  sense.  The  case  is  well  stated  by  Hooker  (vii., 
xiv.  TO)  :  "  There  are  but  two  main  things  observed  in 
every  ecclesiastical  function  :  power  to  exercise  the  duty 
itself,  and  some  charge  of  |  eople  whereon  to  exercise  the 
same."  Here  the  power  is  the  power  of  order,  and  the 
charge  of  people  is  jurisdiction.  The  relation  of  order 
to  jurisdiction  is  also  happily  illustrated  by  the  follow- 
ing passage  from  Mason's  "  Consecration  of  English 
Bishops  ":  f  "  When  a  Bishop  is  translated  to  another 
see,  he  doth  not  lose  his  former  habitual  power,  no  more 
than  the  sun  doth  lose  his  light  when  he  passeth  to  the 
other  hemisphere.  When  a  Bishop  of  a  smaller  circuit 


"  Mission  and  Jurisdiction,"  by  Rev.  T.  J.  Bailey.     C.  C.  Coll. 
Cambridge,  p.  2  f  Lib.  4,  Cap.  i.  ad  fin. 


JURISDIC  TION.  1 3  3 

is  advanced  to  a  greater,  he  getteth  not  a  larger  power, 
but  a  larger  subject  whereupon  he  may  exercise  his  power. 
And  when  a  Bishop  is  deposed,  he  is  not  absolutely  de- 
prived of  his  power,  but  the  matter  is  taken  away  upon 
which  his  power  should  work." 

The  question  of  real  difficulty  in  the  matter  of  jurisdic- 
tion is  how  the  charge  of  people,  as  Hooker  expresses  it ; 
or  the  matter  upon  which  power  should  work,  as  Mason 
puts  it ;  or,  in  other  words,  the  lawful  localization  of  the 
universal  mission,  is  determined. 

"  There  are  but  three  ways,  laying  aside  the  compara- 
tively modern  and  positively  extravagant  claims  of  the 
Papacy,  in  which  the  jurisdiction  of  a  Bishop  can  be 
established  ;  viz.,  either  by  the  assignment  of  the  Bishops 
by  whose  consent  he  is  consecrated,  or  by  the  choice  of 
clergy  and  people,  or  by  the  sanction  of  the  civil  au- 
thority ruling  over  the  district  in  which  he  is  to  be 
settled. 

"  In  the  earliest  times  those  who  conferred  the  Epis- 
copal office  assigned  the  district  in  which  it  was  to  be 
exercised  ;*  and  as  this  would  be  necessary  in  planting 
the  Church  among  the  heathen,  so  it  would  always  be 
lawful  where  such  assignment  did  not  interfere  with  a 
previous  settlement  made  by  competent  authority. 

"  In  later  times  elections  prevailed,  sometimes  by^lergy 
or  people,  and  sometimes  by  clergy  and  people  together. 
And  because  this,  in  the  times  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
led  to  turbulence,  and  in  some  sad  cases  to  riot,  and  even 
bloodshed,  the  emperors  seem  to  have  taken  to  themselves 
the  right  to  appoint  to  dioceses  ;  and  thus  the  right 

*  "  For  this  cause  left  I  thee  in  Crete,  that  thou  shouldcst  set  in 
order  the  things  that  are  wanting,  and  ordain  elders  in  every  city,  as 
I  had  appointed  thee." — St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  Titus,  i.  5. 


134  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

came  to  be  claimed  and  exercised  generally  in  Christian 
countries  by  the  civil  authority."  * 

The  idea  of  mission  to  a  specified  place  being  deter- 
mined by  those  who  had  taken  order  for  consecration, 
seems  to  have  been  very  plainly  recognized  in  the  twenty- 
sixth  of  the  Apostolic  Canons,  where  it  is  provided  that  if 
the  people  of  a  place  for  which  a  Bishop  should  have  been 
consecrated  should  refuse  to  receive  him,  the  Presbyters 
should  be  excommunicated  for  not  having  better  taught 
them  their  duty.f 

In  the  Church  of  England  there  is  (formally)  a  com- 
bination of  the  two  later  modes  of  election  and  appoint- 
ment by  the  civil  authority.  There  is  an  election  by  the 
Chapter  of  the  Cathedral  of  a  vacant  diocese,  but  not 
until  the  chapter  has  received  from  the  Crown  the  congt 
cTeslire,  or  leave  to  elect,  that  permission  being  accom- 
panied with  a  letter  missive  specifying  the  person  whom 
they  are  permitted  to  elect. 

In  the  American  Church  there  is  an  election,  in  the 
manner  prescribed  by  the  Convention  of  the  vacant 
diocese,  composed  of  clergy  and  laity,J  coupled  with  the 
requirement  of  the  consent  of  the  representatives  of  the 
other  dioceses,  as  well  as  of  the  House  of  Bishops. § 

These  are  but  instances.  "  It  is  manifest,"  says  Arch- 
bishop Potter,  after  a  discussion  of  the  subject,  "  that 


*  Sermon  on  the  one  hundredth  anniversary  of  the  election  of 
Bishop  Seabury,  Feast  of  the  Annunciation,  1883,  by  W.  J.  Seabury. 
Cf.  "  A  View  of  the  Elections  of  Bishops  in  the  Primitive  Church," 
by  a  Presbyter  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  Edinburgh,  1728 — probably 
the  learned  Dr.  Thomas  Rattray,  sometime  Bishop  of  Dunkeld. 

f  Fulton's  "  Index  Canonum,"  p.  91,  ed.  1892. 

\  Constitution,  art.  iv. 

§  Digest  of  Canons,  Title  I.  Canon  19. 


JURISDICTION.  135 

the  consent  of  the  metropolitan  and  the  majority  of  the 
corn-provincial  Bishops  was  then  (in  the  time  of  the 
Council  of  Nice)  required  to  the  appointment  of  any 
Bishop  before  he  could  be  ordained.  And  in  the  following 
ages,  when  the  popular  elections  of  Bishops  occasioned 
tumults  which  sometimes  ended  not  without  open  acts 
of  violence  and  even  bloodshed,  to  remedy  this  incon- 
venience, in  some  places  the  clergy,  in  others  the 
emperors,  named  the  Bishops.  From  all  which  together 
we  may  conclude  that  the  power  of  appointing  Bishops 
and  Church  officers  to  exercise  their  functions  in  par- 
ticular districts  is  a  thing  of  a  mixed  nature,  and  has 
never  been  wholly  and  constantly  appropriated  to  any 
one  sort  of  men,  whether  clergy  or  laity,  but  was  lodged 
sometimes  in  one  hand,  and  sometimes  in  another,  as  the 
times  and  other  circumstances  would  best  bear."* 

It  is  always  to  be  remembered,  however,  that  whatever 
circumstances  may  concur  to  determine  the  field  of  work, 
the  whole  authority  comes  from  the  Church.  A  Bishop 
may  be  elected  by  the  clergy  and  people  of  a  diocese,  or 
appointed  thereto  by  the  civil  authority,  but  neither  from 
this  election  nor  appointment  does  his  spiritual  jurisdic- 
tion proceed.  That  election  or  appointment  merely 
designates  the  field  in  which  the  Church  gives  the  Bishop 
authority  to  minister.  Therefore,  in  addition  to  election 
or  appointment,  or  their  equivalents,  there  is  necessary 
some  authoritative  act  of  the  Church,  expressive  of  the 
approval  of  the  Church.  The  ordination  of  a  Bishop  to 
a  diocese  to  which  he  had  been  elected  or  appointed 
would,  in  the  absence  of  any  legal  provision  to  the 
contrary,  be  sufficient  to  express  that  approval.  But  in 


'Discourse  on  Church  Government,"  ch.  v.  pt.  iv.,  ad  fin. 


136  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

later  times  this  is  generally  expressed  in  a  distinct  pro- 
ceeding ;  as  in  England,  after  the  process  of  election, 
there  is  a  process  called  confirmation,  by  which  that 
election  is  ratified  by  the  ecclesiastical  authority.*  This 
process  is  directed  by  statute,  but  at  the  same  time  has 
an  authority  independent  of  Parliament,  being  both  by 
common  and  canon  law  the  rightful  act  of  the  Archbishop 
of  each  province. f  After  the  election  is  duly  confirmed, 
consecration  confers  the  full  jurisdiction. 

The  jurisdiction  of  a  Bishop  elect  and  confirmed,  but 
not  yet  consecrated,  is,  in  the  English  system,  that  which 
relates  to  the  management  of  diocesan  affairs,  and 
which,  sede  vacante,  resides  in  the  Chapter.^  In  the 
American  system,  though  there  is  by  canonical  provision 
a  process  analogous  to  confirmation, §  yet  it  confers  no 
jurisdiction.  Jurisdiction  over  diocesan  affairs  sede 
vacante  belongs,  in  that  system,  to  some  extent,  to  the 
Standing  Committees  which  are  elected  from  year  to  year 
by  the  diocesan  conventions,  and  which  are  in  this 
respect  somewhat  analogous  to  the  English  Chapters. 
But  such  jurisdiction  exists  only  because,  and  in  so  far 
as,  the  canons  confer  it ;  although  it  continues  up  to  the 
time  of  the  consecration  of  the  Bishop-elect.  ||  When  the 
Cathedral  system  is  fully  reestablished  and  reorganized 
in  the  several  dioceses,  it  may  perhaps  be  found  con- 
venient to  associate  this  kind  of  jurisdiction  with  that 
system  ;  but  in  the  meantime  it  canonically  belongs, 
under  canonical  limitations,  to  the  Standing  Committees. 


*  Hook's  "Church  Dictionary,"  title.  Confirmation. 

f  Gilson's  "  Codex,"  i.  128  n. 

\  Bailey,  "Jurisdiction  and  Mission,"  pp.  19-21. 

§  Digest,  Title  I.  Canon  19. 

|  Digest,  Title  III.  Canon  2,  §  iii. 


JURISDICTION.  137 

Episcopal  jurisdiction,  strictly  so  called,  or  spiritual 
jurisdiction,  is  not  received  until  the  election  thus  ratified 
is  followed  by  consecration.  So  that  in  fact  spiritual 
jurisdiction  is  conferred  by  the  Church  in  Ordination, 
whatever  circumstances  may  concur  to  determine  the 
field  within  which  it  is  to  be  exercised.  And  this 
authority  still  flows  from  the  Church,  although,  in  cir- 
cumstances accepted  and  allowed  by  the  Church,  the 
field  or  diocese  should  be  changed  by  translation  or 
other  process. 

This  spiritual  jurisdiction  is  to  be  carefully  distin- 
guished from  coercive  jurisdiction.  The  spiritual  juris- 
diction is  only  in  foro  conscientiae.  The  Bishop  rules  in 
right  of  his  office  only  by  the  conscience  of  his  subjects, 
and  not  by  force.  But  if  the  civil  power  add  its  authority 
to  his  appointment  to  a  special  field,  he  has  there  also 
a  jurisdiction  in  foro  contentioso,  even  over  the  unwilling  ; 
and  rules,  according  to  the  extent  to  which  the  civil 
authority  supports  him,  by  the  power  of  the  civil  arm.* 

The  Bishops  of  the  Church  of  England  have  by  their 
office  and  station  at  different  times  exercised  various 
powers  which  they  received  from  the  civil  authority,  but 
which  were  for  that  reason  not  properly  Episcopal  but 
really  civil  powers,  intrusted  to  them  by  the  State  for 
State  purposes.  Their  successors  in  the  United  States 
have  neither  had  nor  needed  such  additions.  The  purely 
spiritual  jurisdiction  is  all  that  they  possess  or  claim. 
They  rule  by  the  conscience  of  their  subjects,  and  not  by 
force  ;  but  in  a  case  where  force  was  necessary  to  the  due 
effect  of  a  sentence  which  the  Bishop  had  a  right  to 
render,  and  which  was  essential  to  the  well  being  of  the 

*  On  the  history  and  limits  of  the  Bishops'  temporal  jurisdiction  in 
England,  see  Hook's  "Church  Dictionary,"  title,  Jurisdiction. 


I38  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

Church,  it  is  presumed  that  recourse  might  be  had  to  the 
civil  courts.  Any  aid  which  might  be  granted  in  such  a 
case,  however,  would  be  purely  the  result  of  the  exercise 
of  the  civil  or  temporal  power,  and  would  be  granted 
merely  on  the  principle  that  the  civil  authority  would 
secure  the  just  rights  of  any  society  which  by  the  laws  of 
the  country  was  entitled  to  exist  within  its  limits. 

And  to  view  the  matter  from  the  opposite  point,  the 
exercise  of  Episcopal  jurisdiction  in  the  way  of  discipline 
must  always  take  into  account  the  privilege  possessed  by 
individual  members  of  the  Church  to  resort  to  the  civil 
courts  for  the  protection  of  civil  rights  impaired  by  such 
discipline  So  with  regard  to  the  tenure  of  property  by 
the  Church,  and  the  preservation  of  trusts  and  endow- 
ments for  Church  purposes,  the  ecclesiastical  authority 
does  not  extend  to  the  independent  determination  of  the 
rights  involved,  but  such  rights  are  determined  entirely 
by  the  laws  of  the  State  as  applied  by  judicial  tribunals, 
though  in  some  cases  the  statutes  require  the  consent  of 
the  authorities  of  the  Church  in  order  to  the  disposition 
of  property  held  in  trust  for  Church  purposes. 

It  is  evident  that  in  the  application  of  the  distinction 
between  the  properly  Episcopal  spiritual  jurisdiction  and 
the  properly  civil  coercive  jurisdiction  many  complicated 
cases  and  questions  may  arise.  It  involves,  after  all,  the 
issue  between  the  Church  and  the  State,  which  has 
been  contested  with  alternate  encroachments  on  one  side 
or  the  other  ever  since  the  Roman  emperors  embraced 
Christianity.  There  are,  however,  certain  principles  the 
observance  of  which  must  greatly  facilitate  the  proper 
disposition  of  particular  cases  which  appear  to  involve 
such  complication,  at  least  so  far  as  the  Church  in  the 
United  States  is  concerned.  In  the  first  place  it  is  to  be 


JURISDIC  TION.  1 3  9 

observed  that  the  Church  is  regarded  by  the  laws  of  this 
country  as  a  purely  voluntary  association,  consisting  of 
men  who  combine  themselves  together  for  religious  pur- 
poses. Their  right  so  to  combine  themselves  results 
generally  from  the  liberty  of  association  among  men  for 
any  purpose  not  contrary  to  law,  and  particularly  from 
the  constitutional  provisions  which  withdraw  from  the 
legislative  authority  the  power  to  make  laws  concerning 
the  establishment  of  religion  or  restraining  the  freedom 
of  the  conscience.  So  long  as  these  associations  confine 
themselves  to  the  exercise  of  religion  and  do  not  make 
their  profession  of  religion  a  cover  for  immorality  or 
licentiousness,  the  State  has  nothing  whatever  to  say  to 
them. 

When,  however,  these  associations  desire  to  acquire 
property,  it  is  manifest  that  property  held  by  them  must 
be  subject  to  the  same  rule  as  property  held  by  associa- 
tions for  other  than  religious  purposes,  or  by  individuals. 
The  State  then  takes  notice  of  such  associations  and 
prescribes  the  rules  by  which  their  members  may  incor- 
porate themselves  into  particular  societies  having  the 
right  to  hold  and  use  property. 

But  such  corporations  are  in  general  associated  not 
only  together  among  themselves,  but  also  with  others  of 
a  larger  division  or  group  professing  religion  in  the  same 
way  and  on  the  same  principles  ;  hence  the  property 
which  they  acquire  is  not  merely  to  be  disposed  of  for 
the  use  of  the  corporators,  but  is  regarded  as  a  trust  for 
the  preservation  of  those  principles  and  the  perpetuation 
of  a  certain  mode  of  worship.  The  State,  therefore,  takes 
notice  of  the  use  which  such  corporations  make  of  their 
property,  and  the  laws  prevent  the  alienation  or  disposi- 
tion of  that  property  for  purposes  foreign  to  the  trust. 


140  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

This  principle  involves  the  right  of  judicial  tribunals  to 
determine  whether  in  a  particular  case  the  use  of  property 
conforms  to  the  purposes  for  which  it  has  been  acquired, 
and  this  involves  the  right  of  determining  judicially  what 
those  principles  and  rules  are  to  which  conformity  is  due. 
Whether  the  faith  and  order  of  the  Church  have  been 
observed  in  a  particular  case  by  a  corporation  or  a 
minister,  is  a  question  of  fact,  and  in  order  to  the  decision 
of  it  the  court  must  determine,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  what 
that  faith  and  order  are.  But  the  decision,  obviously,  is 
not  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  civil  authority  to  pre- 
scribe what  that  faith  and  order  ought  to  be,  but  a  deter- 
mination of  the  fact  whether  in  a  certain  case  they  have 
been  duly  observed. 

The  same  jurisdiction  which  the  State  exercises  in  re- 
gard to  the  proper  discharge  of  a  trust  is  also  exercised 
in  the  protection  of  individual  rights  growing  out  of 
membership  or  office  in  a  Church.  With  the  mere  rights 
of  membership  or  office  in  an  ecclesiastical  society  the 
State  does  not  concern  itself,  leaving  to  such  societies 
the  power  to  establish  their  own  laws,  and  maintain  their 
own  usages,  and  prescribe  their  own  terms  of  admission 
to  membership  or  office,  or  the  conditions  of  the  con- 
tinued tenure  of  either.  But  in  so  far  as  such  relations 
involve  rights  of  property,  or  subsistence,  or  reputation, 
the  State  is  concerned  ;  and  the  individual  who  has  by 
the  action  of  ecclesiastical  authorities  been  injured  in  his 
civil  rights  will  be  sustained  in  his  resort  to  the  civil 
courts  for  redress.  This  is  not  on  the  ground  that  the 
State  has  jurisdiction  over  the  Church,  but  on  the  ground 
that  it  has  jurisdiction  to  maintain  the  civil  rights  of  its 
citizens  as  well  when  they  are  members  of  the  Church  as 
when  they  are  not. 


JURISDICTION.  1 4  » 

When  a  clergyman,  for  example,  is  sentenced  to  sus- 
pension or  deposition  from  office,  that  sentence  involves 
his  deprivation  of  means  of  subsistence,  as  well  as  dam- 
age to  his  reputation.  If  the  sentence  is  unjustly  given, 
the  courts  will  not  uphold  it,  and  will  afford  redress. 
But  in  determining  the  question  of  justice  or  injustice 
in  such  a  sentence,  the  courts  will  not  consider  the  case 
abstractly  on  its  merits,  but  only  with  particular  view  to 
the  right  of  the  ecclesiastical  court  under  the  laws  of 
its  own  body  to  pass  such  sentence.  This  proceeds  upon 
the  theory  that  the  tenure  of  office  in  the  society  implies 
a  contract  with  that  society  to  deal  with  its  officers  ac- 
cording to  its  laws.  If  those  laws  have  been  observed 
by  which  the  man  has  consented  to  be  bound,  he  has 
nothing  to  complain  of.  If  they  have  been  contravened, 
his  contract  has  not  been  fulfilled,  and  the  injured  person 
has  ground  of  civil  action. 

"  The  true  principle,"  says  a  great  master,*  "  seems  to 
be  this,  that  when  a  man  has  once  been  recognized  by 
any  ecclesiastical  body  as  one  of  its  ministers,  he  cannot 
be  arbitrarily  dismissed,  to  the  injury  of  his  civil  rights. 
He  may  be  dismissed  with  his  own  consent,  or  he  may 
be  dismissed  according  to  the  laws  of  the  body  to  which 
he  belongs;  that  is,  he  may  be  dismissed  with  his  ab- 
solute consent  or  with  his  conditional  consent.  For,  by 
accepting  the  position,  he  has  given  his  consent  to  the 
laws  which  regulate  that  position,  and  consequently  to 
his  own  removal  according  to  those  laws.  He  has, 
nevertheless,  a  right  to  call  on  the  civil  tribunals  to 
inquire  whether  those  laws  have  been  observed.  But 


*  Dr.  Hugh  Davey  Evans,  of  Maryland,  quoted  by  Rev.  Dr.  Hall 
Harrison  in  a  very  valuable  pamphlet  discussing  this  question  (1879). 


I42  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

they  are  not  to  try  the  case  over  again,  or  to  act  as 
courts  of  appeal  from  the  decision  of  the  ecclesiastical 
court.  The  duty  of  the  civil  court  is  to  see  that  the 
ecclesiastical  court  had,  according  to  the  ecclesiastical 
laws,  jurisdiction  over  the  case,  and  proceeded  fairly 
according  to  those  laws.  These  are  the  principles  upon 
which  American  courts  have  generally  acted.  They 
were  fully  recognized  by  the  courts  of  the  State  of  New 
York,  in  the  case  of  Walker  against  Wainwright,  which 
was  the  most  remarkable  one  connected  with  this  subject 
that  has  occurred  in  America."* 


*  The  New  York  case  of  Walker  v.  Wainwright,  above  cited,  is 
reported  16  Barbour,  486 ;  cf.  also  the  case  of  Chase  v.  Cheney,  58 
Illinois.  The  student  will  find  some  intelligent  observations  on  the 
relations  of  Church  and  State  in  the  American  system,  by  Dr.  H. 
von  Hoist,  in  his  work  on  "  The  Constitutional  Law  of  the  United 
States  of  America,"  Mason's  edition,  Chicago,  1887,  pp.  314-321. 


POWERS  CEDED.  143 


PROPOSITION   XX. 

The  principle  that  the  supreme  power  of  the  Apostolic  or 
Episcopal  Office  is  to  be  exercised  with  due  regard  to 
the  inferior  members  of  the  Body  of  Christ,  sanctions 
the  institution  and  development  of  systems  of  Polity  in 
particular  Churches  and  under  peculiar  circumstances, 
whereby  a  certain  kind  and  degree  of  authority  are  vested 
in  the  body  governed. 

BESIDES  those  powers  which  belopg  to  the  Church  as 
a  spiritual  society,  there  are  others  which  belong  to  it 
as  a  society  of  men.  The  former  powers  are  wholly 
lodged  in  the  Ministry,  and  primarily  in  the  Episcopate.* 
They  are  exercised  for  the  salvation  of  souls,  and  though 
their  exercise  implies  a  cooperating  consent  in  the  persons 
upon  whom  they  are  brought  to  bear — as  do  all  the  gifts 
of  Divine  grace  to  the  individual — yet  they  are  not 
lodged  in  those  for  whose  benefit  they  are  designed,  but 
are  ministered  to  them  by  those  who  hold  them  in  trust 
for  that  purpose. 

The  latter  powers  partake  more  of  the  nature  of  those 
of  the  civil  government,  and  relate  to  the  management 
of  the  temporal  interests  of  the  Church  as  a  society.  The 
relation  of  the  body  to  the  State  in  which  it  dwells  ;  the 
acquisition  and  regulation  of  property  ;  the  conduct  of  its 


*  The  powers  of  the  Church  enumerated  by  Archbishop  Potter 
are  the  Powers  of  Preaching,  of  Prayer,  of  Baptizing,  of  Confirmation, 
of  Consecrating  the  Eucharist,  of  Ordaining,  of  Making  Canons,  of 
Jurisdiction,  and  of  Receiving  Maintenance  ;  the  consideration  of 
these  powers  forms  the  topic  of  the  fifth  chapter  of  his  discourse  on 
"Church  Government." 


144  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

members  in  respect  to  matters  not  provided  for  by  Divine 
law,  furnish  occasion  for  the  exercise  of  powers  of  gov- 
ernment not  essentially  of  a  spiritual  nature.  Yet  these 
powers  being  necessary  to  the  government  of  the  Church 
as  a  society,  and  the  Church  being  by  Divine  appoint- 
ment a  society  with  a  regular  order  of  governors,  it  follows 
that  these  powers,  as  well  as  those  which  are  purely  spir- 
itual, belong  to  that  order  of  governors. 

This  kind  of  power  partakes  also  of  the  nature  of  civil 
power  in  the  mode  of  its  exercise ;  being  in  so  far  com- 
pulsory as  to  subject  those  who  disobey  these  temporal 
regulations  to  the  deprivation  of  such  temporal  privi- 
leges as  may  be  incident  to  membership  in  the  Church. 
And  the  exercise  of  this  kind  of  power  implies  the  con- 
sent of  the  governed  at  least  so  far  as  this,  that  no  man 
can  be  compelled  to  continue  his  active  membership  in 
the  Church  against  his  will.  As  long,  however,  as  such 
membership  continues,  so  long  the  obligation  to  obedi- 
ence continues. 

The  power  of  making  laws,  and  the  power  of  declaring 
and  enforcing  or  executing  laws,  are  powers  of  the 
Church  lodged  primarily  in  the  Episcopate  ;  but  in 
different  times  and  places  they  have  been  to  a  greater  or 
less  degree  ceded  to  the  body  governed,  or  recognized 
and  allowed  in  certain  members  of  it,  so  that  their  exer- 
cise is  shared  between  the  Bishops  and  the  inferior 
clergy,  and  sometimes  also  with  representatives  of  the 
laity. 

Very  early  the  precedent  was  established  of  formulating 
certain  principles  upon  which  government  should  hence- 
forth be  administered;  e.g.,  the  rules  adopted  in  the 
council  of  Acts  xv.,  limiting  the  exactions  to  be  made 
of  Gentile  converts.  The  ancient  canons,  too,  adopted 


POWERS  CEDED.  145 

by  Episcopal  action,  largely  limit  the  exercise  of  Epis- 
copal authority  ;  so  that  these  canons  not  only  impose 
duties  upon  the  governed,  but  also  serve  as  the  charter 
of  rights  granted  to  them.  Nor  can  we  imagine  the 
exercise  of  the  imperial  power  upon  the  affairs  of  the 
Church,  and  of  the  royal  power  which  in  the  breaking  up 
of  the  Empire  succeeded  toit,  to  have  been  recognized 
and  allowed  by  the  Episcopate  as  emanating  from  a 
source  exterior  to  the  Church  ;  but  rather  as  proceeding 
from  within,  being  the  expression  of  the  will  of  those 
who,  although  rulers  in  the  State,  were  yet,  in  theory  at 
least,  on  general  principles,  subordinate  members  of  the 
Church.  The  expression  of  this  will  has  throughout 
subsequent  history,  and  notably  in  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, been  the  exponent  of  the  influence  of  the  lay 
element,  or  body  of  the  Church,  as  distinguished  from 
its  successive  Episcopal  rulers.*  And  when,  in  the  course 
of  Divine  Providence,  the  civil  authority  in  the  United 
States,  laying  aside  all  semblance  of  royalty,  laid  aside 
also  what  had  among  all  Christian  nations  before  been 
regarded  as  a  duty  on  the  part  of  Christian  princes — to 
use  the  power  which  they  held  in  trust  for  the  people, 
in  influencing  the  management  of  affairs  for  the  Church 
— and  took  a  position  altogether  external  to  the  Church, 
it  is  not  remarkable,  but  altogether  what  might  have 
been  expected,  that  the  body  of  the  people  within  the 
Church  should  speak  for  themselves  in  regard  to  such 
affairs.  Nor  is  there  anything  more  unchurchly  or 
unbecoming  in  the  deference  and  consideration  shown 
by  the  authorities  of  the  Church  to  its  subordinate  mem- 

*  The  student  will  find  valuable  thoughts  in  this  connection  in 
the  preface  to  Dr.  Samuel  Seabury's  "Continuity  of  the  Church  of 
England." 
10 


I46  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

bers  under  these  republican  circumstances,  than  under 
the  circumstances  of  imperialism  and  royalty. 

To  recognize  and  formulate  certain  principles  of  gov- 
ernment ;  to  provide  checks  to  prevent  rulers  from  dis- 
regarding these  principles  ;  to  require  the  proposal  of 
measures  before  they  can  be  insisted  on  ;  to  arrange 
methods  of  representation  as  means  of  obtaining  con- 
sent of  large  numbers  of  men — are  legitimate  exercises 
of  human  policy.  And  when  these  measures  are  reduced 
to  a  system  by  customary  administration  or  by  legislative 
action,  they  affect  the  polity  of  the  particular  Churches 
in  which  they  are  adopted.  •  So  that  the  government  of 
the  rulers  of  these  Churches  must  be  exercised  in  certain 
methods,  and  with  certain  restictrions,  which  are  indeed 
of  human  and  not  of  Divine  authority,  but  which,  never- 
theless, rest  upon  sound  principles  of  policy  and  morals, 
and  which  cannot  consistently  with  good  faith  be  dis- 
regarded. 

Thus  the  possession  of  powers  of  government  in  the 
Church  by  others  than  its  Divinely  appointed  governors 
may  be  accounted  for,  and  to  some  extent  sustained,  by 
the  principle  that  the  government  of  the  Church  should 
be  by  love  and  consent,  rather  than  arbitrary  and  co- 
ercive. To  expect  the  consent  of  individuals  to  measures 
of  individual  discipline  would  of  course  be  visionary  and 
absurd.  But  to  procure  the  consent  of  the  body  to  gen- 
eral rules  which  shall  be  applicable  to  each  individual  is 
practicable,  and  moreover  wise,  as  insuring  the  moral 
support  of  the  whole  body  to  the  lawful  requirements  of 
its  governors. 

This  is  the  essential  idea  of  constitutional  liberty,  the 
glory  and  blessing  of  modern  civilization,  so  far  as  civil 
government  is  concerned  ;  and  for  the  effective  applica- 


POWERS  CEDED.  147 

tion  of  this  idea,  modern  civilization  is  largely  indebted 
to  the  Christian  Church. 

It  is  obvious,  however,  that  the  distribution  of  power 
which  results  from  the  application  of  this  idea,  may  some- 
times be  carried  too  far ;  and  the  inherent  and  inalienable 
powers  of  the  Ministry,  as  to  matters  purely  spiritual, 
maybe  seriously  hindered  in  their  exercise,  if  not  usurped, 
by  those  who  are  properly  the  objects  of  those  powers. 
Moreover,  it  is  possible  that  the  effectiveness  of  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  Church,  even  over  its  temporalities,  may 
be  marred  by  too  wide  a  divergence  from  the  simplicity 
of  the  original  institution  of  Church  government,  which, 
however  republican  in  regard  to  the  Church  as  a  whole, 
is  yet,  in  its  original  diocesan  aspect,  monarchical ;  though 
it  may  be  remarked,  in  passing,  that  the  republican 
aspect  of  the  Church  on  earth,  as  a  whole,  results  only 
from  the  invisibility  of  its  Divine  Head.  Viewed  in  con- 
nection with  Him,  it  still  appears  as  the  KINGDOM. 

In  view  of  the  tendency  in  the  United  States  to  the 
subordination  of  the  diocesan  to  the  congregatiojial  idea 
of  government,  and  to  the  relegation  of  the  Bishops  to 
the  position  of  mere  executives  of  conventional  law,  it 
has  been  thought — and  possibly  may  be  admitted — that 
the  Church  has  somewhat  suffered  by  too  much  conces- 
sion to  the  principle  of  government  by  consent,  and  the 
too  extensive  distribution  of  power  resulting  therefrom. 
Nevertheless,  the  purpose  of  the  system  having  been 
from  the  beginning  the  blessing  of  a  "  free,  valid,  and 
purely  ecclesiastical  Episcopacy,"  which  should  be  able 
in  the  exercise  of  its  spiritual  powers  to  impart  the  treas- 
ures of  grace  and  truth  to  the  members  of  Christ,  with- 
out temptation  to  encroach  in  any  respect  upon  their 
Christian  liberty — from  which  temptation  it  must  be  con- 


148  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

fessed  that  some  of  the  successors  of  the  Apostles  had 
not  hitherto  been  wholly  exempt — and  the  advantage  of 
the  system  having  been  so  great  as  it  has  been,  in  respect 
of  the  benefit  to  its  counsels  from  the  practical  wisdom 
of  the  laity,  and  the  reservation  to  the  Episcopate  of 
the  ultimate  voice  upon  all  authoritative  action,  it  would 
be  unreasonable  to  expect  to  enjoy  such  privilege  with- 
out some  corresponding  disadvantage.  Omnis  commoditas 
sua  fert  incommoda  secum. 

Even  a  true  theory,  moreover,  cannot  be  worked  with- 
out regard  to  fact ;  and  the  participation  on  the  part  of 
the  body  governed  in  the  power  of  the  governors  is  in 
this  instance  a  fact,  and  one  which  cannot  be  changed 
by  any  individual  or  party  action.  Every  Bishop  must 
administer  his  office  not  only  on  the  principle  of  its 
inherent  powers,  but  also  under  the  limitations  of  such 
concessions  as  are  involved  in  acceptance  of  office  under 
expressed  and  settled  conditions,  so  long  as  these  con- 
cessions lie  within  the  range  of  expediency,  and  do  not 
contravene  the  Divine  will.  Such  changes  as  may  be 
needed  in  the  administration  of  the  government  of  the 
Church  must  be  brought  about  by  the  gradual  process 
of  educating  the  body  of  the  Church  to  a  return  to  more 
churchly  ideas,  rather  than  by  the  revolutionary  process 
of  applying  to  modern  cases  the  requirements  and  pen- 
alties of  the  stricter  discipline  of  primitive  times. 


THE  FEDERAL  IDEA.  149 


PROPOSITION   XXI. 

The  gift  of  the  same  powers,  for  the  same  purposes,  to  the 
several  incumbents  of  the  Apostolic  office,  involves  the 
principle  of  federation  among  equals  for  mutual  counsel 
and  cooperation  in  the  government  of  the  Church  in  their 
respective  spheres. 

IF  the  authority  of  the  Apostolic  office  be  lodged  in 
the  whole  number  of  its  incumbents  without  discrimina- 
tion or  preference,  each  one  has  his  undivided  equal 
share  of  that  authority  ;  according  to  the  famous  maxim 
of  Cyprian  :  Episcopatus  unus  est,  cujus  a  singulis  in 
solidum  pars  tenetur. 

But  if  each  one  has  his  undivided  equal  share  of  the 
whole  authority,  it  must  follow  that  the  common  expres- 
sion of  that  authority  involves  the  federation  or  agree- 
ment of  each  one  with  the  others  in  order  to  that 
expression. 

With  respect  to  his  fellow  Bishops,  the  individual 
cannot  use  his  undivided  share  of  authority  as  equivalent 
to  the  whole.  In  his  individual  sphere  he  acts  alone,  as 
representing  the  whole  authority  in  that  sphere  ;  but  in 
the  expression  or  determination  of  limitations,  or  quali- 
fications of  that  authority,  or  in  the  definition  of  the  faith 
in  common  received,  and  to  be  in  common  witnessed  to 
and  guarded,  and  by  each  one  imparted  and  admin- 
istered, the  consent  or  agreement  of  the  individual  with 
others,  or  his  acceptance  of  the  consent  or  agreement  of 
others,  involves  his  union  with  them  in  a  common  league 
or  federation,  the  object  of  which  is  mutual  counsel  and 
cooperation,  and  in  which  each  one  is  under  obligation 


15°  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

to  contribute  his  own  judgment  and  will,  and  to  accept 
the  judgment  and  will  of  the  whole  body.* 

If  we  suppose  a  number  of  individuals,  each  one 
possessed  within  his  own  sphere  of  a  sovereign  power 
of  supreme  government,  acting  as  one  body  in  mutual 
counsel  and  cooperation  for  the  benefit  of  all,  we  recog- 
nize in  such  joint  or  common  action  a  league  or  federa- 
tion between  the  members  of  the  body.  It  may,  or  may 
not,  be  that  these  individual  rulers  are  under  obligation, 
of  one  kind  or  another,  to  associate  themselves  together 
for  common  action.  The  fact  that  they  have  the  power 
to  act  individually,  and  that  they  do_jvoluntarily  act 
together,  is  what  constitutes  their  federation.  It  is  true 
that  Christ's  commission  imposes  an  obligation  upon  the 
Bishops  to  act  in  common,  but,  inasmuch  as  the  nature  of 
their  authority  is  such  as  to  presuppose  the  power  of  in- 
dividual action  in  direct  responsibility  to  Christ  alone, 
the  common  action  can  only  be  by  consent  and  voluntary 
agreement,  which  is  federation.  Every  individual  Bishop 
holding  an  entire  share  of  the  power  of  his  order  is  able 
to  exercise  it  independently  of  all  others  similarly  com- 


*  The  observation  of  the  learned  Bishop  Beveridge  as  to  what  is 
to  be  taken  as  the  voice  of  the  Church  Universal,  would  equally 
apply  to  the  voice  of  the  united  Episcopate  either  as  a  whole,  or  in 
such  groups  as  might  act  together  in  any  portion  of  the  Church — 
"  In  omnibus  enim  societatibus,  qualis  est  ecclesia,  pars  major  prseju- 
dicat  minori,  et  jus  integri  obtinere  solet.  Quod  major  pars  curitz, 
inquit  jus  civile,  efficit,  pro  eo  habetur  ac  si  omnes  egerint.  Imo 
quidem  haec  inter  communes  juris  illius  regulas  habetur.  Refertur 
ad  universes,  quod  publice  fit  per  majorem  partem.  Quod  itaque 
vel  a  majori  parte  statuitur,  aut  affirmatur,  illud  ecclesise  universali 
jure  adscribendum  est  :  multo  magis  quod  conjunctis  omnium  vel 
pene  omnium  testimoniis  munitiir." — BEVERIDGE,  Codex  Canonum, 
etc.,  Proemium  iv. 


THE  FEDERAL  IDEA.  151 

missioned ;  and  if  he  waive  this  ability  in  deference  to 
the  will  of  Christ,  and  act  only  in  conjunction  with  the 
others,  the  action  is  voluntary,  and  the  common  action  of 
all  similarly  situated  has  an  essentially  federate  character. 
"  It  remains  now,"  said  Cyprian,  after  proposing  a  case 
for  the  consideration  of  a  council  of  Bishops  over  which 
he  was  presiding,  "  that  every  one  of  us  speak  his  own 
sense  of  this  matter,  neither  judging  any  man,  nor  reject- 
ing him  from  our  communion  for  dissenting  from  us,  for 
none  of  us  does  make  himself  a  Bishop  of  Bishops,  or 
force  his  colleagues  to  a  necessity  of  complying  with  him 
by  any  tyrannical  terror,  since  every  Bishop  has  full 
power  to  determine  for  himself,  and  can  no  more  be 
judged  by  others  than  he  can  judge  them.  But  let  us 
all  wait  for  the  judgment  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who 
alone  has  power  to  make-  us  governors  of  His  Church, 
and  to  call  us  to  account  for  our  administration."*  An 
exhortation  which  plainly  discloses  such  a  conception  of 
the  joint  or  common  action  of  the  Episcopate  as  implies 
the  agreement  or  consent  of  its  individual  members  ; 
there  being,  as  the  same  venerable  Father  expressed  it 
on  another  occasion,  "  One  Episcopacy  diffused  in  many 
Bishops  agreeing  with  one  another."  f 

The  importance  of  this  consideration  to  a  correct 
understanding  of  the  relation  of  the  individual  Bishop  to 
the  Episcopate  of  which  he  is  a  member,  is  very  great. 
The  subject  is  sometimes  treated  as  if  the  individual 
Bishop  were  to  be  regarded  as  deriving  his  authority 
from  the  Episcopate  ;  or,  to  put  it  in  other  words,  as  if 

*  Concil.  Carthag.,  inter  opera  Cypr.,  p.  158.  Cited  by  Potter, 
p.  185,  "Church  Government,"  ed.  1753. 

f  "  Episcopatus  unus,  Episcoporum  multorum  concordi  numerosi- 
tate  diffusus." — Ep.  lv.  Cited  by  Potter,  p.  406. 


I52  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

Christ  constituted  the  college,  and  the  college  consti- 
tuted its  successive  members.  Yet  so  to  speak  involves 
the  gravest  misconception,  and  leads  to  serious  con- 
fusion in  the  understanding  of  many  dependent  ques- 
tions. The  Episcopate  is  indeed  one,  diffused  in  many 
members  throughout  the  world.  But  the  unity  consists 
in  the  gift  to  each  member  of  the  powers  of  the  same 
office  ;  and  every  incumbent  of  that  office  holds  its  whole 
power  in  trust  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  will  of  Christ  in 
perpetuity — that  is,  with  the  power  of  transmitting  this 
trust  to  successors  of  his  own  appointment.  The  inde- 
pendent exercise  of  this  power  by  one  incumbent  in 
opposition  to  the  rest,  would  be  manifestly  contrary  to 
the  terms  of  the  joint  commission,  and  would  mar  the 
unity  in  which  the  office  was  established ;  and  the 
Church,  carrying  out  the  terms  of  this  commission,  has 
always  repudiated  such  individualism.  But  the  Episco- 
pate is,  nevertheless,  constituted  by  the  powers  conferred 
upon  its  members  ;  and  the  subordination  of  the  indi- 
vidual to  the  body  is  due,  not  to  a  power  conferred  upon 
the  body  to  rule  the  members,  but  to  the  fact  that  the 
same  power  conferred  upon  all  the  members  of  the  same 
body  for  the  same  purpose,  implies,  in  matters  requir- 
ing it,  their  united  action — which  depends  upon  their 
consent.* 

Clearly  in  accord  with  this  view  is  the  evidence  af- 

*  The  Rev.  Dr.  Wilson,  in  his  learned  and  thoughtful  essay  on 
"The  Provincial  System"  (pp.  71-73),  understands  the  passage,  St. 
Matt,  xviii.  19,  20,  to  refer  to  matters  of  official  power  and  determi- 
nation, regarding  the  words  as  spoken  to  the  Apostles,  and  not  gen- 
erally to  the  body  of  the  faithful.  There  is  the  strongest  probability 
that  this  interpretation  is  correct.  Dr.  Wilson  applies  the  passage 
so  interpreted  to  the  provincial  system,  regarding  it  as  the  charter  of 
that  system.  And  if  by  this  is  intended  the  settlement  by  the  Divine 


THE  FEDERAL  IDEA.  I  £3 

forded  by  the  Scriptures  that  original  incumbents  of 
this  office  acted  upon  the  principle  that  each  one  in  his 
own  sphere  was  the  exponent  of  its  whole  power,  even 
to  the  extent  of  perpetuation.  Certainly  such  was  the 
case  with  St.  Paul ;  and,  so  far  as  the  nature  of  his 
authority  is  concerned,  he  is  not  to  be  distinguished 
from  the  other  Apostles.  And  although  the  tacit  assent 
of  the  college  to  their  actions  is  to  be  presumed,  yet 
nothing  shows  that  they  derived  from  it  the  authority  to 
exercise  the  power  of  their  office,  or  needed  to  have 
recourse  to  it,  except  in  the  way  of  counsel  and  de- 
termination of  matters  of  doubt ;  the  decision  being 
reached,  in  the  case  most  particularly  recorded,  after 
much  disputation  and  free  expression.*  There  is  one 
instance  recorded  in  which  two  Apostles  are  sent  by  the 
college  on  a  special  mission  ;  \  which  implies,  indeed, 
the  subordination  of  the  individual  to  the  college,  but  by 
no  means  excludes  the  idea  of  agreement  or  consent  in 
order  to  the  determination  of  common  action  ;  nor  do 
the  other  instances  of  the  action  of  the  body,  as  a 
whole,  exclude  this  idea  ;  J  but  they  do,  on  the  other 
hand,  manifestly  presuppose  it. 

And  if  we  may  take  ecclesiastical  tradition  and  history 
into  account,  which  is  the  more  allowable  because  the 
Scriptures  are  silent  in  regard  to  the  greater  number  of 
the  Apostles,  we  find  increased  evidence  of  this  inde- 


Founder  of  the  principle  of  association  among  the  incumbents  of 
the  Apostolic  Office — and  further  it  would  seem  impossible,  in  any 
view,  to  press  it — the  application  must  be  admitted  to  be  rightly 
made.  It  is,  in  the  present  connection,  proper  to  note  that  the 
principle  of  association,  as  stated  by  our  Lord,  is  that  of  agree- 
ment. "  If  two  of  you  shall  agree"  etc. 

*  Acts,  xv.  f  Acts,  viii.  14.  \  Acts,  i.  15-26.  vi.  1-7. 


154  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

pendent  exercise  of  official  power  ;  insomuch  that  the 
conviction  deepens,  that  the  intent  of  the  Founder  of  the 
system  was  that  each  one  whom  He  commissioned 
should  be  to  the  Church  which  he  in  his  place  should 
establish,  what  Christ  in  His  place  had  been  to  the 
Church  over  which  He  Himself  had  presided  —  that 
being  the  pattern  of  all  the  others  ;  and  that  the  Church 
as  a  whole  should  thus  be  constituted — not  out  of  the 
mass  of  His  disciples  throughout  the  world,  called 
together  and  ruled  by  one  imperial  power  mediating 
between  the  Head  Invisible  and  the  Apostles  whom  He 
had  commissioned,  but  of  a  combination  of  many 
Churches,  each  one  complete  in  itself,  and  governed  by 
its  own  Apostle,  who,  exercising  in  his  own  sphere  the 
supreme  authority  which  he  had  received  from  Christ, 
deferred  to  the  college  ;  not  because  he  derived  author- 
ity from  it,  but  on  the  principle  of  unity,  and  because  it 
was  involved  in  the  common  possession  of  the  same 
power  for  the  same  purpose  that  the  judgment  of  one 
should,  in  matters  requiring  counsel  and  cooperation, 
be  subordinate  to  the  judgment  of  the  whole.  With  this 
conception,  we  get  an  insight  into  the  primitive  view  of 
the  Episcopate,  indicated  by  the  familiar  quotations 
from  Ignatius,  such  as  that  exhorting  the  faithful  to 
regard  the  Bishop  as  in  the  place  of  God,  and  the  Pres- 
byters as  in  the  room  of  the  Apostles,  which  upon  any 
other  theory  we  shall  miss. 

And  it  is  certainly  very  significant  to  observe,  in  this 
connection,  that  in  the  history  of  the  Church  a  very  con- 
siderable period  elapses  between  the  facts  recorded  in 
the  Scriptures  from  which  we  justly  infer  the  subordina- 
tion of  the  individual  to  the  college,  and  facts  which 
indicate  a  recognition  on  the  part  of  their  successors  in 


THE  FEDERAL   IDEA.  1 55 

office  of  a  similar  subordination.  Considering  the  spe- 
cial presence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  with  the  first  Apostles, 
and  the  greater  need  which  their  successors  might  be 
supposed  to  have  for  dependence  upon  their  brethren, 
it  is  remarkable  that  the  association  of  Bishops  in  the 
way  of  councils,  in  which  the  authority  of  the  indi- 
vidual was  subordinated  to  that  of  his  brethren  in  the 
same  office,  does  not  at  once  appear.  It  may,  perhaps, 
be  accounted  for  by  the  unsettled  state  of  their  times, 
making  such  gatherings  inconvenient;  and  their  prox- 
imity to  the  tradition  of  the  Apostles  might  make  these 
early  Bishops  feel  the  need  of  mutual  counsel  and  co- 
operation with  each  other,  less  than  they  felt  the  need, 
each  one  in  his  own  diocese,  of  the  counsel  and  co- 
operation of  those  who  were  intrusted  to  their  care. 
But  however  this  may  have  been,  the  fact  is  that  the 
first  synods  after  the  Apostles  had  passed  away,  and  the 
only  synods  for  many  years  afterward,  were  diocesan. 
These  consisted  of  the  Bishop  of  the  diocese,  with  a 
certain  number  of  his  Presbyters,  designated  by  him  or 
elected  by  the  body  of  the  clergy  as  their  representatives. 
"  Each  diocese,  therefore,"  as  Lathbury  remarks  in  his 
"  History  of  Convocation,"  "  in  early  times  was  inde- 
pendent, the  Bishop  and  his  council  managing  its  affairs, 
subject,  of  course,  to  the  Word  of  God  and  to  the  dis- 
cipline established  by  the  Apostles.  The  decisions  of 
diocesan  synods  were  obligatory  on  all  within  the  bound- 
aries of  the  diocese,  having  the  force  of  ecclesiastical 
laws  ;  nor  did  any  other  councils  exist  for  many  years 
after  the  first  establishment  of  the  Christian  Church."  * 


*  Lathbury,   "Hist.  Con.,"  pp.  6,  7.     Cf.   also  Kennett,  "  Eccl. 
Synods." 

"  Touching  the  next  point,  how  bishops  together  with  presbyters 


I56  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

The  individual  Bishop,  then,  being  independent  in  his 
own  sphere,  subject  only  to  the  common  rule  of  faith  and 
order,  it  may  be  presumed  that  if  each  one  had  been 
infallible,  or  supplied  as  the  first  Apostles  were  with  the 
special  guidance  and  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  he 
would  certainly  need  no  other  recourse  to  external  au- 
thority than  the  Apostles  themselves  had  recognized  in 
their  own  case.  But  the  absence  of  such  inerrancy 
would  necessarily  produce  differences  as  to  the  just  re- 
quirements of  the  common  faith  and  order  ;  and  doubtful 


have  used  to  govern  the  Churches  which  were  under  them  ;  it  is  by 
Zonaras  somewhat  plainly  and  at  large  declared,  that  the  bishop  had 
his  seat  on  high  in  the  Church  above  the  residue  which  were  present ; 
that  a  number  of  presbyters  did  always  there  assist  him  ;  and  that  in 
the  oversight  of  the  people,  these  presbyters  were  after  a  sort  the 
bishop's  coadjutors.  The  bishop  and  presbyters,  who  together  with 
him  governed  the  Church,  are  for  the  most  part  by  Ignatius  jointly 
mentioned.  In  the  epistle  to  them  of  Trallis,  he  saith  of  presbyters 
that  they  are  6vu/3ovXot  nod  6vve8pevrai  rov  ettidKOTtov 
(counsellors  and  assistants  of  the  bishop)." — HOOKER,  Book  VII.,  ch. 
vii.  I. 

"The  presbyters,"  says  Bingham,  "were  considered  as  a  sort  of 
Ecclesiastical  Senate,  or  council  to  the  bishop,  who  scarce  did  any- 
thing of  great  weight  and  moment  without  asking  their  advice,  and 
taking  their  consent  to  give  the  greater  power  and  authority  to  all 
public  acts  done  in  the  name  of  the  Church.  Upon  which  account 
St.  Chrysostom  and  Synesius  style  them  the  Court  or  Sanhedrim  of 
the  presbyters  ;  and  Cyprian,  the  sacred  and  venerable  bench  of  the 
clergy  ;  St.  Jerome  and  others,  the  Church's  Senate,  and  the  Senate 
of  Christ ;  Origen,  and  the  author  of  the  '  Constitutions, 'the  bishop's 
counsellors  and  the  Council  of  the  Church  ;  because,  though  the 
bishop  was  prince  and  head  of  this  Ecclesiastical  Senate,  and  nothing 
could  regularly  be  done  without  him,  yet  neither  did  he  ordinarily 
do  any  public  act  relating  to  government  or  discipline  of  the  Church 
without  their  advice  and  assistance." — Christian  Antiq.,  Book  II., 
ch.  xix.  7. 


THE  FEDERAL   IDEA.  15 7 

questions,  such  as  reached  beyond  single  dioceses — 
affecting  perhaps  the  whole  Church,  as  in  the  case  of 
heresies — would  naturally  make  the  need  of  such  external 
authority  more  and  more  sensibly  felt  as  time  proceeded. 

But  in  the  endeavor  to  make,  or  to  discover,  the  pro- 
vision proper  to  such  need,  it  is  worth  while  to  remember 
that  these  early  Bishops  were  embarrassed  by  none  of  the 
theories  which  in  later  times  have  distressed,  if  not  the 
Church,  at  least  the  student  of  Church  polity.  The  civil 
authority,  when  it  was  not  persecuting  them,  despised  and 
neglected  them  ;  and,  of  course,  with  all  their  conscious- 
ness of  the  duty,  saving  their  allegiance  to  Christ,  of 
obedience  to  the  existing  powers,  they  would  never  think 
of  finding  in  them  the  supply  of  their  need  of  an  external 
and  impartial  authority.  They  were  innocent  of  Papacy 
and  Vicarage  of  Christ  as  the  sole  right  of  any  one 
Bishop,*  nor  had  they  learned  that  the  charge  to  St. 
Peter  to  feed  his  Master's  sheep  was  a  commission  to 
feed  His  shepherds — much  less  to  fleece  and  flay  them. 
Nor  is  there  room  for  any  serious  doubt  of  their  being 
equally  unconscious  of  a  collegiate  theory  which  con- 
ceives of  the  individual  Bishop  as  the  mere  agent  and 
deputy  of  the  Episcopate  ;  and  which,  because  the  Catho- 
lic canons  for  the  best  of  reasons  required  a  plurality  of 
consecrators,  can  form  no  idea  of  a  perfect  Church  ex- 
cept as  comprising  Bishops  enough  to  comply  with  the 
canonical  requirement. 

Nor  should  one  omit  to  take  into  account  the  obvious 
historical  fact  that  the  provincial  system,  with  its  precise 
and  far-reaching  regulation  of  the  relation  of  the  indi- 

*  Every  Bishop  was  anciently  called  Papa,  Father,  or  Pope  :  so 
also  they  were  all  called  Vicars  of  Christ.  Bingham,  "Christian 
Antiquities,"  Book  II.,  ch.  ii.,  §§  7,  10. 


158  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

vidual  Bishop  to  his  brother  Bishops  had  not  yet  come 
into  being. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  would  seem  to  be  difficult 
for  any  one,  who  can  put  himself  in  the  place  of  these  men, 
to  avoid  the  conviction  that  in  the  recourse  of  individual 
Bishops  to  the  counsel  and  support  of  their  brethren  in 
the  Episcopate,  endued  with  the  same  powers  and  bur- 
dened with  like  cares  and  responsibilities,  they  simply 
adopted  the  most  easy  and  effectual  method  of  meeting 
the  difficulties  in  which  they  found  themselves,  and  one, 
also,  for  which  a  sufficient  precedent  and  example  was 
plainly  furnished  to  them  in  the  course  pursued  by  their 
illustrious  predecessors  in  office.*  And  it  seems  equally 
obvious,  that,  as  their  association  with  each  other  was 
entirely  free  and  voluntary,  and  was  the  action  of  those 
who  conceived  of  themselves,  and  were  regarded  by  each 
other  and  by  those  of  whom  they  had  the  oversight,  as 
put  in  trust  with  a  power  of  government  which  they  held 
on  their  direct  responsibility  to  Christ  alone,  they  met  as 
equals,  the  expression  of  whose  common  authority  de- 
rived its  force  and  effect  from  the  common  consent  which 
produced  and  accepted  it. 

It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  subsequent  development  of 
the  provincial  system  brought  with  it  the  recognition  of 


* "  Cum  ipsis  enim  Apostolis  ad  determinandam  istam,  quae  in 
ecclesia  recens  nata  exorta  erat,  de  circumcisione  et  lege  Mosaica 
Gentilibus  imponenda,  controversiam  in  synodo  una  convenire,  et  in 
ea  Canonem  sive  ecclesiasticam  de  ista  re  legem  sancire  visum  fuisset, 
hac  iis  praemonstrata  via  itum  est  ab  omnibus  ipsorum  successoribus, 
sive  episcopis,  quibus  ecclesise  ulterius  propaganda  regendseque  cura 
commissa  fuit.  Si  qua  enim  quaestio  de  fide  Christian!,  vel  de 
externa  ecclesiae  rite  instituenda  emersit,  earn  episcopi,  Aposto- 
lorum  more,  in  synodis  congregati  protinus  determinare  solebant. " — 
BEVERIDGE,  Codex  Canonum,  etc.,  Lib.  I.,  cap.  ii.  p.  10.  Ed.  1678. 


THE  FEDERAL    IDEA.  159 

distinctions  between  Bishops  whereby  for  certain  purposes 
one  had  precedence  or  primacy  over  others,  and  some 
again  had  a  certain  primacy,  so  to  speak,  over  these 
primates.  But,  apart  from  the  fact  that  such  precedency 
involved  no  breach  of  the  principle  of  equality  in  the 
substance  of  official  authority,  there  was  at  the  time  in 
question  nothing  of  this  sort  ;  and  this  is  notably  evi- 
denced by  the  provision  made  by  the  canons  called 
Apostolical,  against  inconveniences  which  were  naturally 
incident  to  a  state  of  equality,  and  to  obviate  the  dangers 
to  unity  which  would  be  apt  to  result  from  such  inconven- 
iences. "  It  is  necessary,"  says  the  Thirty-fourth  Canon 
of  this  venerable  collection,  "  that  the  Bishops  of  every 
nation  should  know  him  who  is  chief  among  them,  and 
should  recognize  him  as  their  head  by  doing  nothing  of 
great  moment  without  his  consent,  and  that  each  of  them 
should  do  such  things  only  as  pertain  to  his  own  parish 
and  the  districts  under  him.  And  neither  let  him  (who 
is  chief)  do  anything  without  the  consent  of  all,  for  thus 
shall  there  be  unity  of  heart,  and  thus  shall  God  be  glori- 
fied through  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  even  the  Father 
through  the  Lord  in  the  Holy  Ghost  ;  [that  is]  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost."  * 

This  collection,  being  assigned  according  to  the  best 
judgment  to  the  end  of  the  second  or  the  beginning  of 
the  third  century,  gives,  in  the  canon  cited,  very  clear 
evidence  that  up  to  this  period  there  were  no  recognized 
distinctions  among  Bishops,  or,  at  least,  that  there  was 
needed  the  settlement  of  some  principle  of  precedency, 
the  propriety  of  some  distinction  rn  order  to  the  preser- 
vation of  unity  among  equals  having  become  manifest ; 


*  Fulton's  "  Index  Canonum,"  p.  91. 


160  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

and  furnishes,  moreover,  a  hint  not  altogether  obscure, 
that  association  among  Bishops  which  called  for  such 
distinction  was  not  then  unknown.  It  would  be  most 
natural  to  understand  this  as  referring  to  meetings  of 
Bishops  in  council,  and  as  indicating  that  the  Bishops 
had  by  this  time  learned  to  follow  the  Apostolic  example 
in  this  respect.  And  of  this  the  Thirty-seventh  Canon 
furnishes  clearer  evidence.*  And  that  these  councils  of 
Bishops,  whenever,  then  or  afterward,  held,  involved, 
within  the  range  of  the  Episcopal  representation,  the 
subordination  of  the  individual  Bishop  to  the  Episcopate 
so  represented,  and  acting  within  the  common  rule  of 
faith  and  order,  is  not  to  be  denied.  But  such  subordi- 
nation was  not  that  of  a  subject  to  his  sovereign,  but  that 
of  one  sovereign  to  a  federation  of  sovereigns. 

It  is  to  be  repeated,  that  the  gift  of  the  same  powers 
for  the  same  purposes  to  all  the  incumbents  of  an  office, 
involves  the  entire  and  equal  authority  of  each,  and  that 
neither  derives  authority  from  the  combination  of  all,  but 
that  the  combination,  in  so  far  as  it  may  exist,  has  its 
joint  authority  in  matters  requiring  counsel  and  coopera- 
tion, from  the  consent  and  acceptance  of  those  who 
compose  it. 

If  the  case  be  otherwise,  and  if  there  was  established 
by  Christ  an  authority  to  be  exercised  by  right  of  inher- 
ent sovereignty  over  its  individual  members,  it  would  be 
an  authority  external  in  the  sense  of  being  superior  to 
the  commission  to  the  Apostles,  and  would  require  to  be 
established  by  such  proof  as  we  would  demand  in  order 
to  the  admission  of  the  overruling  power  of  the  civil 
magistrate  in  spiritual  concerns,  or  of  the  supremacy  of 


*  Fulton's  "  Index  Canonum,"  p.  91, 


THE  FEDERAL  IDEA.  161 

some  individual  vicar  of  Christ;  and  the  proof  would  need, 
moreover,  to  establish  the  right  of  some  fewer  number  of 
Bishops  to  act  on  occasion  in  the  place  of  the  whole 
number,  or  as  a  substitute  for  this  when  the  whole  num- 
ber was  not  to  be  had  :  for  unless  this  could  be  proved 
there  would  be,  to  say  the  least,  a  singular  discrepancy 
between  the  will  of  Christ  for  the  government  of  His 
Church,  and  the  facts  of  history ;  since  there  is  no 
instance  in  history  in  which  this  body  of  the  Episcopate 
has  emerged  to  assert  its  authority  over  its  individual 
members  since  the  time  of  the  Apostles.  Numerous 
councils  there  have  indeed  been,  and  profound  and  last- 
ing are  the  obligations  of  the  Church  to  many  of  them  ; 
but  that  any  of  these,  even  those  called  General,  and  to 
which  we  owe  the  greatest  reverence,  comprised  the 
whole  of  the  existing  Episcopate,  is  what  probably  no  one 
will  affirm,  and  the  only  ground  upon  which  this  imper- 
fect portion  of  the  Episcopate  can  be  recognized  as  hav- 
ing the  authority  of  the  whole  is  that  its  action  has  been 
assented  to  and  accepted  by  those  who  were  not  present 
with  it,  which  plainly  indicates  the  nature  of  the  obliga- 
tion imposed. 

What  is,  in  fact,  true,  is  that  the  Bishops  of  the  Church, 
recognizing,  in  the  free  agency  of  their  responsibility  to 
Christ,  their  need  of  mutual  counsel  and  cooperation  for 
the  better  discharge  of  that  authority  with  which  they 
were  all  equally  intrusted,  have,  from  time  to  time,  asso- 
ciated themselves  with  their  brethren,  in  greater  or  less 
numbers,  within  wider  or  narrower  limits,  and  have  ac- 
cepted the  determinations  of  such  associations  as  impos- 
ing an  obligation  upon  them  in  the  regulation  of  their 
own  government  in  their  several  spheres.  It  remains, 
then,  that  we  accept  the  authority  of  councils  according 
ii 


162  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLI7Y. 

to  their  range  and  extent,  as  based  upon  the  federal  con- 
sent and  agreement  of  those  who  compose  them,  or  who, 
being  within  the  scope  of  their  united  jurisdiction,  accept 
them  as  in  accordance  with  the  fundamental  laws  of 
Christ's  kingdom. 

It  would,  however,  be  leaving  this  discussion  seriously 
incomplete  in  view  of  modern  developments  if  we  failed 
to  take  into  account  the  proportion  or  analogy  between 
the  relation  of  the  individual  Bishop  to  the  Episcopate, 
and  the  relation  of  the  Diocese  to  the  Church.  The  time 
has  passed  when  we  can  say,  as  Bishop  Beveridge,  follow- 
ing Vincentius  Lirinensis,  puts  it,  that  in  the  endeavor  to 
ascertain  the  general  voice  or  expressed  judgment  of  the 
Church  we  need  not  inquire  as  to  the  laity,  but  only  as 
to  the  Bishops,  and,  to  some  extent,  as  to  the  clergy 
also.*  Whether  it  be  due  to  the  more  general  culture  of 
modern  times,  or  to  the  wider  prevalence,  in  matters  of 
civil  interest,  of  the  doctrine  of  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people,  or  to  whatever  cause,  the  fact  is  that  the  laity 

*  "  Etiamsi  enim  singulorum  per  omnes  aetates  Christianorum 
sententias  nobis  transmissas  non  habeamus,  habemus  tamen  quod 
tantidem  est.  Primo  etenim  ubi  de  universal!  Ecclesiae  consensu 
loquimur,  baud  necesse  est,  ut  ad  plebis  etiam  sive  Laicorum 
opiniones  respiciamus ;  Illi  enim  ad  judicium  de  doctrina  aut  disci- 
plina  Ecclesiae  ferendutn  nunquam  admissi  fuerunt  ;  quippe  quos 
pastorum  suorum  sententias  in  omnibus,  ut  par  est.  sequi,  non  praeire 
semper  praesumptum  est.  .  .  .  Hinc  itaque  consensionem  Ec- 
clesiae non  e  populo  sed  ex  Episcoporum,  e  Magistris  et  Sacerdotibus 
petendam  esse.  Vincentius  Lirinensis  recte  olim  observavit.  .  .  . 
Neque  enim  in  omnibus  quae  unquam  de  istiusmodi  rebus  celebrata 
sunt  concilia's,  quempiam  e  plebe  decretis  subscripsisse  legimus, 
omnia  vero  per  singulas  aetates  communia  Ecclesiae  negotia  per  solos 
Episcopos  et  nonnullos  subinde  presbyteros,  Episcoporum  suorum 
loca  tenentes  in  concilliis  transacta  sunt." — BEVERIDGE,  "Codex 
Canonum,"  etc..  proemium  iv. 


THE  FEDERAL   IDEA.  163 

are,  and  for  a  century  or  more  have  been,  distinctly 
recognized  as  a  factor  in  matters  of  ecclesiastical  polity 
in  a  sense  and  to  an  extent  never  before  known.  In  the 
American  system  this  has  been  from  the  beginning 
formally  and  effectively  provided  for ;  and  throughout 
the  Anglican  affiliation  the  influence  of  the  idea  of  the 
association  of  the  laity  with  the  Bishops  and  clergy  in  all 
that  concerns  the  welfare  of  the  Church,  not  excluding  a 
share  in  the  responsibility  of  deliberative  and  legislative 
action,  is  increasingly  prevalent.  And  the  question  of 
really  serious  and  vital  interest  is  not  whether  the  influ- 
ence of  the  laity  in  such  action  shall  be  admitted,  but 
whether  it  is  to  be  kept  within  the  range  of  those  princi- 
ples of  association  and  representation  which  are  essen- 
tially characteristic  of  the  influence  of  the  Bishops  and 
clergy  in  the  system  of  the  Church,  or  is  to  be  rendered 
effective  in  other  ways  and  on  different  principles  of 
association,  involving  perhaps  the  preponderance  of 
numerical  majorities  in  large  tracts,  instead  of  the  safe- 
guard of  concurrent  majorities  adjusted  to  Episcopal  and 
clerical  representative  action  in  more  compact  districts. 

The  principle  which  should  rule  all  such  questions, 
and  the  whole  relation  of  the  laity  to  the  deliberative 
and  legislative  action  of  the  clerical  orders,  is  that  their 
action  must  be,  primarily  at  least,  diocesan  action  ;  their 
relation  to  the  Church  at  large  being  correspondent  to 
that  of  their  Bishops,  and  the  Diocese,  as  a  body,  hold- 
ing the  same  relation  to  the  Church  as  a  whole  as  the 
Bishop  holds  to  the  Episcopate. 

In  the  analysis  of  the  one  Episcopate  the  single  Bishop 
is  the  unit,  because  in  him  is  vested  the  whole  power  of 
his  order  for  the  purpose  for  which  it  is  instituted  ;  and, 
by  parity  of  reasoning,  what  the  individual  Bishop  is  to 


164  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

the  body  of  the  Episcopate,  that  the  individual  Diocese 
is  to  the  body  of  the  Church.  It  is,  upon  analysis,  the 
single  element  which,  in  combination  with  other  like 
elements,  constitutes  the  larger  and  more  complex  being 
of  the  same  kind.  The  whole  Church  exists  in  model  or 
element,  so  to  speak,  in  the  Diocese,  which  comprises  the 
threefold  order  of  the  Ministry,  and  the  laity,  united  in 
the  faith  and  sacraments  of  Christ.  No  element  or 
portion  of  the  Diocese,  and  no  subdivision  of  the  Church 
less  or  more  than,  or  different  from,  the  Diocese,  bears 
this  relation  to  the  Church  as  a  whole  ;  whereas  in  the 
Church  as  a  whole  there  is  nothing  different  from  the 
Diocese  in  kind,  but  only  in  extent.  The  single  unit  is 
capable  of  extending  itself  indefinitely,  supposing  there 
should  be  necessity  for  such  extension.  If  the  whole 
Church  throughout  the  world  were  extinct  save  one 
Diocese,  the  gates  of  hell  should  not  prevail  against  it ; 
for  from  that  unit  could  be  established  another,  and 
others,  with  the  same  threefold  order,  and  the  laity, 
united  in  the  faith  and  sacraments  of  Christ.  If  this 
power  were  to  be  exercised  without  necessity,  and  con- 
trary to  the  will  of  the  rest  of  the  body  of  which  the  unit 
is  a  part,  there  would  be  schism  and  confusion  ;  and 
hence  the  canons  and  customs  of  the  Church  maintain 
the  necessity  of  combined  action,  and  the  irregularity  of 
fractious  and  individual  action. 

Viewing  the  analysis  of  the  Church  in  its  bearing  on 
the  question  of  representation  in  conciliary  bodies,  it 
may  be  quite  proper,  in  a  qualified  sense,  to  regard  the 
Province,  or  combination  of  Dioceses  within  some  par- 
ticular country,  as  a  unit  of  representation  in  a  larger 
combination  of  which  it  may  form  a  part.  In  such  case 
the  relation  of  the  Diocese  would  be  mediately  through 


THE   FEDERAL   IDEA.  165 

the  Province  to  the  more  general  division  which  com- 
prised the  Province,  or  to  the  whole  Church.  But 
whether  mediately  through  the  Province,  or  immediately 
and  by  direct  representation,  the  Diocese  would  still  be 
the  unit  of  representation ;  nor  does  the  kind  of  repre- 
sentation, whether  by  Bishops  only,  or  by  Bishops  and 
clergy  only,  or  by  these  with  the  laity,  affect  the  analysis. 
In  the  ancient  councils  the  Dioceses  were  not  unrepre- 
sented because  they  did  not  elect  delegates  ;  they  were 
represented  by  their  Bishops,  who  sat  in  them,  not, 
surely,  to  represent  themselves  ;  not  to  represent  their 
order,  because  they  were  themselves,  actually  and  not 
representatively,  present ;  but  to  represent  that  portion 
of  the  work  of  Christ  which  had  been  committed  to  them 
— that  is,  their  Dioceses.  And  in  such  conciliary  bodies  as 
admit  the  conjoint  representation  of  the  clergy  and  the 
laity,  the  Diocese  is  indeed  represented  in  all  its  parts, 
instead  of  in  one  order  only,  but  that  does  not  show  it 
incapable  of  having  been  represented  in  that  one  order. 
And  although  in  synods  of  a  larger  or  more  universal 
character  the  immediate  unit  of  representation  may 
possibly — not  necessarily — be  the  Province,  yet  the  ulti- 
mate unit  is  always  the  Diocese,  which  is  the  thing 
represented,  either  directly  and  immediately,  or  mediately 
in  the  groups  which,  containing  several  Dioceses,  may  be 
represented  as  one  Province  in  a  larger  division  of  the 
Church  representative. 

So  that,  whether  we  look  at  the  Church  as  a  whole, 
and  acting  as  a  whole,  or  in  its  larger  divisions,  we  find 
it  existing  as  a  combination  of  Dioceses,  the  unity  of  the 
whole  being  but  the  unification  of  the  units  which 
compose  it. 

This  analysis  is  complete  and  exact,  and  gives  to  the 


166  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

whole  system,  and  to  the  units  of  which  it  is  composed, 
their  proper  functions  and  relations.  But  the  same  can- 
not be  said  of  an  analysis  which  finds  the  unit  in  the 
single  parish  or  congregation,  because  it  is  not  of  the 
same  kind  with  the  larger  being  of  which  it  is  a  member, 
and  has  none  of  its  powers  of  perpetuation  and  continued 
life.  Nor  can  it  be  said  of  an  analysis  which  finds  the 
ultimate  unit  in  the  province,  because  the  province  is  not 
the  simplest  form  of  that  kind  ;  and  the  unit  in  any  such 
analysis  must  be  the  simplest  form  of  the  same  kind — 
the  single  element  which,  combined  with  other  like  ele- 
ments, produces  the  larger  and  more  complex  being  of 
the  same  kind.  The  Diocese  only  answers  to  this  require- 
ment in  the  analysis  of  the  Church,  as  the  Bishop  only 
answers  to  it  in  the  analysis  of  the  Episcopate.  We  must 
therefore  hold  that  what  the  Bishop  is  to  the  Episcopate, 
that  the  Diocese  is  to  the  Church.* 


*  Cf.  "The  System  of  Representation  in  General  Convention," 
The  Church  Eclectic,  New  York,  October,  1889. 


THE   CIVIL  ANALOGY.  167 


PROPOSITION    XXII. 

The  principle  that  the  rulers  and  members  of  the  Church  owe 
allegiance  to  the  State  in  which  they  are  providentially 
placed,  justifies  the  distribution  of  the  Church  represent- 
ative into  divisions  corresponding  to  civil  or  political 
limits. 

WE  have  seen  that  the  Church  is  capable  of  a  certain 
lawful  or  constitutional  division,  resulting  from  its  ex- 
tension and  perpetuation  in  a  lawful  and  constitutional 
manner,  which  is  not  inconsistent  with  its  essential  unity. 
If  we  have  regard  only  to  that  union  of  the  members  of 
the  Church  with  Christ  and  with  each  other  which  is 
purely  spiritual,  the  Church  is  not  capable  of  division  or 
distribution  in  any  sense,  except  as  individuals  may  be 
differentiated  from  each  other  and  from  their  common 
Head.  The  unity  of  the  Church  in  this  aspect  is  doubt- 
less pervading  and  perpetual,  and  neither  place  nor  time 
can  affect  it.  But  if  we  have  regard  to  that  moral,  or 
social,  or  political  union  which  exists  between  the  mem- 
bers of  the  society  or  kingdom  founded  by  Christ  to  be 
in  the  world  though  not  of  the  world,  and  to  be  the  sac- 
rament, or  outward  and  visible  sign,  of  the  spiritual  unity 
of  Christ  with  His  members,  and  the  effectual  means  of 
its  accomplishment,  it  is  impossible  to  conceive  of  the 
Church  in  this  aspect  as  incapable  of  any  manner  of 
division  or  distribution.  It  must  reside  in  the  world  ; 
and  that  not  merely  in  the  world  considered  as  the  ma- 
terial receptacle  of  its  visible  and  tangible  members,  but 
in  the  world  considered  as  constituted  of  men,  and  of 
men  of  various  social  relations  with  each  other.  In  other 


l6S  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

words,  it  pertains  to  the  nature  of  the  Church  as  a  so- 
ciety that  it  should  come  into  contact  and  have  certain 
relations  with  men  involved  in  other  social  relations,  un- 
less we  will  suppose  that  no  other  society  than  the  Church 
is  by  the  Divine  Will  to  exist  on  the  earth.  But  we  find 
in  the  charter  of  the  Church's  institution  no  exclusive 
right  of  existence,  nor  do  we  find  that  all  the  interests  of 
men  in  their  relations  with  each  other  on  this  earth  are 
committed  to  its  regulation.  It  has,  indeed,  the  Divine 
mission  to  lead  and  influence  men  in  all  relations  of  life  ; 
but  this  is  by  way  of  imparting  to  those  who  hold  such 
relations  the  knowledge  and  the  grace  needful  for  the 
right  discharge  of  their  duty  therein,  and  not  by  way  of 
removing  such  relations  and  substituting  others  for  them. 
There  are,  as  we  have  seen,  other  institutions  which  share 
with  the  Church  the  warrant  of  Divine  authority  and 
imposition,  and  which,  within  their  respective  spheres, 
have  the  right  to  exercise  the  authority  and  influence 
entrusted  to  them,  just  as  the  Church  within  its  sphere 
has  an  authority  and  influence  peculiar  to  itself.  It  is 
therefore  necessary  that  the  Church  should  come  in  con- 
tact with  these  other  Divine  institutions  ;  and  such  contact 
involves  the  recognition,  on  the  part  of  the  Church,  of 
the  rights  which  belong  to  such  institutions  by  the  same 
authority  to  which  it  traces  its  own  rights.  Inasmuch  as 
the  State,  abiding  in  the  world  as  an  institution  of  Divine 
authority,  exists  throughout  the  world  in  various  political 
divisions,  it  is  necessary  that  the  Church  should  come 
into  contact  with  the  State  not  merely  in  the  general, 
but  in  those  particular  political  divisions  into  which  it  is 
distributed. 

And  since  the  general  diffusion  of  the  Church,  and  the 
corresponding  extent  of  its  membership,  precludes  the 


THE   CIVIL  ANALOGY.  169 

possibility  of  individual  assent  in  matters  of  legislation, 
and  yet  laws  are  presumed  to  be  expressive  of  common 
consent,  it  follows  that  there  must  be  in  the  Church,  as 
well  as  in  the  State,  provision  for  the  expression  of  this 
consent  by  those  who  are  capable  of  representing  it ; 
and  the  form  and  manner  of  this  representation  will 
naturally  correspond  to  the  form  and  manner  of  repre- 
sentation for  similar  purposes  in  matters  of  civil  interest. 
If  the  kingdoms  of  this  world  were  under  one  uni- 
versal dominion,  it  would  be  easy  to  imagine  the  Church 
throughout  its  whole  extent  under  one  similar  visible 
regulation.  But  the  kingdoms  and  states  of  this  world 
being  many  and  diverse,  it  is  natural  that  the  Church 
extended  among  them  should  partake  of  their  various 
characteristics  in  the  regulation  of  its  external  affairs, 
and  yet  not  be  affected  in  the  tenure  and  administration 
of  its  essential  and  distinctive  principles.  Certainly, 
therefore,  unless  it  be  one  of  the  essential  and  distinct- 
ive principles  of  the  Church  that  the  governors  of  the 
Church  should  acknowledge  a  spiritual  allegiance  to 
some  higher  power  than  their  own  beyond  the  bounds 
of  the  State  wherein  they  dwell,  those  governors  are 
justified  by  the  principle  of  the  allegiance  which  they 
owe  to  the  civil  authority  under  which  they  live,  in  re- 
taining their  own  official  supremacy  in  their  own  hands. 
The  obligation  imposed  upon  these  governors  by  the 
terms  of  their  commission,  to  act  in  common,  as  the 
bond  of  unity  in  the  Church  at  large,  may  be  allowed  in 
a  modified  sense  to  constitute  an  allegiance  which  is  ex- 
ternal to  the  bounds  of  particular  States  ;  but  except  in 
regard  to  matters  of  faith,  or  such  matter  of  order  as 
might  in  principle  affect  the  Church  as  a  whole,  that 
authority  of  the  general  body  of  the  governors  of 


17°  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

Christ's  Church  could  not  be  lawfully  applied  to  the 
regulation  of  their  internal  and  domestic  administration. 
Their  possession  of  authority  upon  a  direct  responsibility 
to  Christ  admits  of  no  enforced  external  power  of  regu- 
lation while  they  keep  within  the  analogy  of  the  faith 
and  the  constitutional  order  of  Christ's  institution  ;  and 
their  association  with  each  other  within  the  limits  of 
their  civil  allegiance  suffices  for  all  ordinary  purposes  of 
common  and  representative  government  over  their  own 
flocks.  So  that,  without  assuming  the  position  that  their 
association  under  one  civil  power  absolutely  precludes 
their  association  with  those  who  are  under  another  civil 
power,  for  purposes  of  mutual  counsel  and  determina- 
tion of  matters  affecting  their  common  duty,  it  still  re- 
mains true  that  their  allegiance  to  the  civil  authority 
justifies  their  grouping  themselves  within  the  limits  of 
that  authority,  and  acting,  in  their  representative  capac- 
ity, independently  of  all  others  in  all  matters  of  ordinary 
administration  and  government. 

And  this  justification  becomes  the  more  cogent  when 
we  consider  that  the  correspondence  or  analogy  between 
the  State  and  the  Church  representative  results  not 
merely  from  similar  habits  of  thought  and  modes  of 
deliberation,  but  from  the  participation  of  the  two  powers 
in  that  jurisdiction  or  discipline  whereby  in  their  several 
spheres  they  are,  by  the  Divine  institution,  presumed  to 
work  together  in  the  moral  development  of  man.  The 
law  of  God  being  the  basis  of  all  human  law  in  the  State 
as  well  as  in  the  Church,  the  makers  and  administrators 
of  that  law  should  proceed  upon  common  principles  in 
regard  to  its  requirements  in  their  respective  spheres  of 
temporal  and  spiritual  jurisdictions  ;  and  when  they  work 
together  in  one  commonwealth — by  mutual  influence,  if 


THE   CIVIL  ANALOGY.  171 

not  in  any  formal  way — it  is  with  better  and  more  prac- 
tical effect  than  if  the  influence  of  the  spirituality  be 
brought  to  bear  from  an  external  and  alien  power,  incap- 
able of  appreciating  the  needs  and  the  difficulties  of  the 
internal  administration.  At  all  events,  if  this  be  thought 
an  argument  of  expediency,  admitting  of  different  views,  it 
still  remains  true  that  the  right  of  any  such  external  power 
to  exercise  authority  within  the  jurisdiction  of  a  Church 
already  under  the  government  of  Christ's  Apostolic  com- 
mission, is  a  right  which  is  to  be  proved  before  its  claim 
can  be  allowed,  since  the  official  equality  involved  in 
that  commission  makes  the  jurisdiction  of  each  one  free 
from  the  intrusion  and  interference  of  any  other ;  and 
the  universal  adoption  of  civil  limits  as  the  field  of 
spiritual  jurisdiction  makes,  in  fact,  as  many  independent 
Churches  as  there  are  independent  States  wherein  they 
dwell,  saving  always  their  necessary  dependence  upon  the 
common  faith  and  order  of  Christ's  establishment.  "  The 
best  union,"  therefore,  "  that  can  be  expected  between 
visible  Churches  seated  in  kingdoms  or  commonweals, 
independent  one  of  another,  is  the  unity  of  league  or 
friendship"  *  which,  however  strict  it  may  be  thought 
desirable  to  make  it,  cannot  preclude,  though  it  may 
limit,  the  autonomy  of  those  who  are  concerned  in  it. 

In  the  history  of  the  Church  representative  acting  in 
a  legislative  and  administrative  capacity  in  the  way  of 
government,  there  appear  to  be  certain  divisions  which 
are  marked  by  plainly  distinguishable  characteristics,  and 
which  it  may  be  convenient  for  the  purposes  of  the  pres- 
ent discussion  to  call  the  primitive,  the  imperial,  the 
monarchical,  and  the  republican  ;  as  in  each  period  the 


*  Jackson,  Works,  vol.  xii.  p.  59,  ed.  1844. 


I?2  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

relation  of  the  Church  to  the  States  or  Kingdoms  in  which 
it  has  resided  has  been  conformable  in  greater  or  less 
degree  to  the  various  patterns  of  civil  government  with 
which  it  has  come  in  contact. 

I.  What  is  here  called  the  primitive  period  extends 
from  the  time  of  the  Apostles  to  the  time  when  the 
Roman  Emperor  Constantine  embraced  Christianity. 

The  Christian  Church  being  endowed,  as  a  society,  with 
a  Divine  right  of  preserving  the  faith  and  securing  the 
discipline  that  should  be  necessary  to  hinder  the  gates  of 
hell  from  prevailing  against  it,  the  Church  governors, 
as  Kennett  remarks  in  his  treatise  on  ecclesiastical 
synods,  had  authority  to  meet  and  consult  of  all  urgent 
affairs  ;  and  when  so  assembled  their  resolutions  and 
decrees  were  thought  declaratory  of  the  sense  of  Scrip- 
ture and  of  sound  traditions,  and  were  so  far  binding  to 
the  inferior  Priests  and  people.  But  according  to  the 
external  policy  of  things  and  times,  these  synods  had  a 
different  nature  and  denomination. 

The  earliest  of  those  Christian  synods  might  be  called 
Apostolical,  and  their  ordinary  sessions  were  at  Jerusa- 
lem, where  the  Bishop  of  that  Church  had  a  seeming 
presidency  above  the  other  Apostles.  And  perhaps  if 
that  city  had  stood,  the  succession  of  governors  in  that 
Church  should  have  gone  in  the  lineage  of  our  Saviour  ; 
and  then,  had  that  been  so,  the  Bishops  of  Jerusalem, 
with  some  affinity  to  the  High  Priests,  might  possibly 
have  had  a  fairer  pretence  to  the  primacy  than  those  of 
Rome. 

The  next  synods  were  diocesan  ;  for  after  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  all  Bishops  were  of  equal  character, 
and  had  within  their  own  respective  districts  the  separate 
care  of  Church  affairs,  so  that  every  diocese  was  an  ab- 


THE    CIVIL   ANALOGY.  173 

solute  Church  within  itself,  and  had  full  authority  over 
its  own  members.  The  Bishop  and  his  colleagues,  who 
were  select  Presbyters,  held  their  peculiar  synods,  and 
their  acts  and  determinations  (agreeable  to  the  analogy  of 
faith  and  form  of  government  in  the  Catholic  Church) 
were  as  valid  and  obligatory  within  their  own  communion 
as  if  they  had  been  actually  confirmed  by  all  the  other 
Bishops.  I  say  every  diocese  was  a  complete  Church, 
and  the  acts  of  a  diocesan  synod  were,  within  the  bounds 
of  that  authority,  full  and  sufficient  ecclesiastical  laws. 
As  there  was  yet  no  liberty,  so  there  was  yet  no  occasion 
for  provincial,  national,  or  general  synods. 

It  was  soon  needful  for  the  common  concerns  of 
Christianity  that  the  neighboring  Bishops  should  not 
only  intend  their  own  flocks,  but  should  mutually  cor- 
respond by  letters  and  by  meetings,  for  the  general 
interest  of  the  Catholic  Church.  And  when  the  several 
Bishops  of  equal  order  did  so  meet,  it  was  expedient  for 
peace  and  method  to  give  the  chair  to  some  one  particu- 
lar Bishop  as  the  president  in  such  a  common  assembly. 
To  avoid  emulation,  it  was  least  invidious  to  choose  that 
Bishop  who  governed  the  chief  city  in  that  province  ; 
who  had  by  degrees  some  larger  privileges  and  powers, 
more  easy  to  obtain,  and  more  suitable  to  him,  because 
his  see  was  in  the  metropolis  of  the  civil  government. 
Hence  came  the  induced  rights  of  metropolitans,  and 
the  practice  of  provincial  synods.* 

This  exceedingly  rational  statement  of  Kennett  is  well 
sustained  by  the  learned  Bingham,  in  whose  account  of 
the  same  period  the  civil  analogies  are  more  precisely 
applied  : 


*  Kennett's  "  Ecclesiastical  Synods,"  pp.  197-204. 


174  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

"  To  understand  the  state  and  division  of  the  Church 
aright,  it  will  be  proper  to  take  a  short  view  of  the  state 
and  division  of  the  Roman  Empire  ;  for  it  is  generally 
thought  by  learned  men,  that  the  Church  held  some  con- 
formity to  that  in  her  external  policy  and  government, 
both  at  her  first  settlement,  and  in  the  changes  and 
variations  that  were  made  in  after  ages.  In  the  time  of 
the  Apostles  every  city  among  the  Greeks  and  Romans 
was  under  the  immediate  government  of  certain  mag- 
istrates within  its  own  body,  commonly  known  by  the 
name  of  /3ov\i]  or  Senatus,  its  Common  Council  or 
Senate,  otherwise  called  Ordo  and  Curia,  the  States  and 
court  of  the  city  ;  among  which  there  was  usually  one 
chief  or  principal  above  the  rest,  whom  some  call  the 
dictator,  and  others  the  defensor  civitatis;  whose  power 
extended  not  only  over  the  city,  but  all  the  adjacent 
territory,  commonly  called  the  TtpoocGrsia,  the  suburbs, 
or  lesser  towns,  belonging  to  its  jurisdiction.  This  was  a 
city  in  the  civil  account,  a  place  where  the  civil  mag- 
istrate and  a  sort  of  lesser  Senate  was  fixed,  to  order  the 
affairs  of  that  community,  and  govern  within  such  a 
precinct. 

"  Now  much  after  the  same  manner  the  Apostles,  in 
first  planting  and  establishing  the  Church,  wherever  they 
found  a  civil  magistracy  settled  in  any  place,  there  they 
endeavored  to  settle  an  ecclesiastical  one,  consisting  of  a 
Senate  or  Presbytery,  a  Common  Council  of  Presbyters, 
and  one  chief  president  above  the  rest,  commonly  called 
the  TtposffTGdS,  or  the  Apostle,  or  Bishop,  or  Angel  of 
the  Church  ;  whose  jurisdiction  was  not  confined  to  a 
single  congregation,  but  extended  to  the  whole  region  or 
district  belonging  to  the  city,  which  was  the  TipodffTtia, 
or  Ttapoinia,  or,  as  we  now  call  it,  the  diocese  of  the 


THE   CIVIL  ANALOGY.  175 

Church.  According  to  this  model,  most  probably,  St. 
Paul  directed  Titus  to  ordain  Elders  in  Crete,  nata 
TtoXir,  in  every  city  ;  that  is,  to  settle  an  ecclesiastical 
Senate  and  government  in  every  place  where  there  was 
before  a  civil  one  ;  which,  from  the  subsequent  history 
of  the  Church  we  learn,  was  a  Bishop  and  his  Presbytery, 
who  were  conjointly  called  the  Elders  and  Senate  of  the 
Church.  .  .  .  Another  division  of  the  Roman  Empire 
was  into  provinces  and  dioceses.  A  province  was  the 
cities  of  a  whole  region  subjected  to  the  authority  of  one 
chief  magistrate,  who  resided  in  the  metropolis,  or  chief 
city  of  the  province.  This  was  commonly  a  Praetor,  or 
Proconsul,  or  some  magistrate  of  the  like  eminence  and 
dignity.  A  diocese  was  a  still  larger  district,  containing 
several  provinces  within  the  compass  of  it,  in  the 
.capital  city  of  which  district  a  more  general  magistrate 
had  his  residence,  whose  power  extended  over  the  whole 
diocese,  to  receive  appeals,  and  determine  all  causes 
that  were  referred  to  him  for  a  new  hearing  from  any 
city  within  the  district.  And  this  magistrate  was  some- 
times called  an  eparchus,  or  vicarius  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  and  particularly  a  Prcefectus  Augustalis  at  Alex- 
andria. When  first  this  division  was  made,  it  is  not  so 
certainly  agreed  among  learned  men  ;  but  it  is  generally 
owned  that  the  division  of  provinces  is  more  ancient* 
than  that  of  dioceses ;  for  the  division  into  dioceses 
began  only  about  the  time  of  Constantine.  But  the 
cantonizing  of  the  Empire  into  provinces  was  long 
before ;  by  some  referred  to  Vespasian,  by  others  reck- 
oned still  more  ancient,  and  coeval  to  the  first  establish- 
ment of  the  Christian  Church. 

"  However  this  was,  it  is  very  plain  that  the  Church  took 
her  model,  in  setting  up  metropolitical  and  patriarchal 


I?6  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

power,  from  this  plan  of  the  State.  For,  as  in  any  me- 
tropolis, or  chief  city  of  the  province,  there  was  a  supe- 
rior magistrate  above  the  magistrates  of  every  single  city, 
so,  likewise,  in  the  same  metropolis  there  was  a  Bishop 
whose  power  extended  over  the  whole  province,  whence 
he  was  called  the  metropolitan  or  primate,  as  being  the 
principal  Bishop  of  the  province,  as  has  been  showed  in 
another  place.  In  like  manner,  as  the  State  had  a 
vicarius  in  every  capital  city  of  each  civil  diocese,  so  the 
Church,  in  process  of  time,  came  to  have  her  exarchs,  or 
patriarchs,  in  many  if  not  in  all  the  capital  cities  of  the 
Empire. 

"  This,  in  the  main,  was  the  state  and  division  of  the 
Church  into  provinces  and  exarchates,  or  metropolitical 
and  patriarchal  dioceses,  in  the  latter  end  of  the  fourth 
century,  from  which  it  appears  that  a  very  near  corre- 
spondence was  observed  between  the  Church  and  the 
State  in  this  matter,  both  in  the  Western  and  Eastern 
Empire.  .  .  .  Yet,  these  being  matters  only  of  con- 
veniency  and  outward  order,  the  Church  did  not  tie  her- 
self absolutely  to  follow  that  model,  but  only  so  far  as 
she  judged  it  expedient  and  conducive  to  the  ends  of  her 
own  spiritual  government  and  discipline."* 

Of  course,  in  so  far  as  this  account  relates  to  the  state 
and  division  of  the  Church  in  the  latter  end  of  the  fourth 
century,  it  covers  more  ground  than  is  included  in  the 
primitive  period  which  we  are  at  present  considering. 
But  the  view  exhibited  in  both  the  abstracts  just  given 
has  regard  to  a  progressive  development,  and,  so  far  as 
relates  to  synodical  form,  which  is  that  expression  of  the 
Church  representative  with  which  we  are  now  particularly 


*  Bingham,  "Christian  Antiquities,"  Book  IX.  ch.  i.  sees.  1-9. 


THE   CIVIL  ANALOGY.  177 

concerned,  obviously  traces  the  growth  of  the  system  of 
councils,  with  its  attendant  distinctions  in  Episcopal  title 
and  prerogative,  from  the  custom  of  Diocesan  organiza- 
tion existing  in  the  times  immediately  following  the 
Apostolic  councils  up  to  the  more  formal  and  extended 
organization  which  is  commonly  known  as  the  provincial 
system,  which,  with  more  or  less  specific  historical  ex- 
ample, was  certainly  well  established  and  clearly  distin- 
guishable in  the  fourth  century,  and  which,  in  its  origin, 
progress,  and  maturity,  bears  the  ineffaceable  mark  of 
civil  analogy.* 

II.  But  the  system  naturally  becomes  not  only  more 
thoroughly  unified  after  the  emperors  became  Christian, 
but  also  more  definite  and  precise  in  its  details  of  arrange- 
ment ;  and  synodical  sessions  and  acts,  as  well  as  Epis- 
copal distinctions  and  prerogatives,  acquire  an  additional 
weight  of  influence,  if  not  of  authority,  from  the  recog- 
nition and  sanction  of  imperial  power.  To  this  period 
we  trace  the  first  appearance  of  such  a  representation  of 
the  Church  as  might,  in  a  proper  sense,  be  considered 
proportionable  to  the  whole  body  ;  and  it  is  plainly  to 
the  civil  authority  that  we  owe  this  appearance  in  fact, 
whether  or  not  we  are  inclined  to  the  belief  that  such  a 
general  appearance  of  the  Church  representative  would 
or  could  have  been  accomplished  without  State  action. 
For,  when  the  Roman  Empire  became  Christian,  the 
emperors  thought  proper,  on  urgent  occasions,  of  which 
they  constituted  themselves,  and  were  allowed  by  the 


*  The  student  should  read  with  particular  care  the  second  hook  of 
Bingham's  "  Christian  Antiquities  ; "  the  Rev.  Dr.  Egar's  "  Christen- 
dom Ecclesiastical  and  Political  ; "  the  Rev.  Dr.  Fulton's  introduc- 
tion to  his  valuable  "  Index  Canonum  ;  "  and  the  Rev.  Dr,  Wilson's 
recent  essay  on  "  The  Provincial  System." 
12 


1 78  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

Church  to  be,  the  judges,  to  call  together  the  Bishops 
within  their  dominion.  Constantine  the  Great  called  the 
Council  of  Nice,  and  sat  in  it.  Theodosius  the  Great 
called  the  Council  of  Constantinople,  and,  at  the  desire  of 
the  Fathers,  confirmed  its  acts.  Such,  indeed,  was  the 
relation  between  the  emperors  and  the  Church  represent- 
ative of  that  period,  that,  as  Kennett  remarks,  the  very 
being  of  general  councils  was  founded  upon  a  civil  su- 
premacy. "  It  was  a  universal  emperor,  not  a  universal 
Bishop,  that  first  authorized  the  institution  of  them,  and 
his  proper  jurisdiction  extended  to  all  the  Bishops  so 
convened.  And,  indeed,  the  first  general  councils  were 
in  effect  but  national  synods,  confined  to  one  civil  govern- 
ment, of  which  there  was  but  one  head,  though  so  many 
members  of  different  countries  and  peoples."  * 

III.  Upon  the  ruins  of  the  Roman  Empire,  however, 
many  countries  formed  themselves  into  absolute  and 
independent  governments,  and  thus  came  in  what  is  here 
called  the  monarchical  period,  in  which  the  rights  which 
had  been  claimed  by  the  emperors  in  summoning  and 
sanctioning  general  councils,  were  appropriated  by  their 
successors,  the  rulers  in  different  portions  of  their  former 
dominion,  and  were  equally  admitted  by  the  Churches  of 
their  respective  jurisdictions.  So  that  what  the  emperors 
had  been  to  the  councils  called  general,  that  the  kings 
became  to  the  councils  which  are  called  national ;  and 
though  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  upon  the  dissolution  of  the 
Western  Empire,  usurped  the  pretension  of  calling  gen- 
eral councils,  yet  the  supreme  magistrates  in  every  nation 
had  a  right  to  allow,  or  to  forbid,  their  subject  Bishops 
to  obey  the  summons  of  the  Pope  as  being  an  act  beyond 


*  Kennett,  "  Ecclesiastical  Synods,"  ut  sup. 


THE    CIVIL   ANALOGY.  179 

his  jurisdiction,  and  requiring  the  authority  of  the  joint 
consent  of  all  Christian  princes  ;  and  the  right  was  exer- 
cised as  well  as  disputed. 

The  foregoing  sketch  is  sufficient  to  indicate  that  the 
course  of  history  substantiates  the  fact  of  the  distribution 
of  the  Church  representative  into  divisions  corresponding 
to  the  civil  divisions  within  which  it  dwells  ;  and  that  the 
moving  cause  of  this  distribution  has  been  the  recogni- 
tion on  the  part  of  the  rulers  of  the  Church  of  allegiance 
due  from  them  to  the  civil  authority.  The  conflict  be- 
tween the  different  civil  powers  and  the  Papacy  has  been, 
of  course,  persistent,  and  with  alternate  success  and  de- 
feat. The  history  of  that  conflict  forms  a  very  large  part 
of  the  history  of  the  Christian  world,  since  the  emperors 
first  assumed  what  the  Popes  afterward  usurped,  and  the 
monarchs  took  back,  sometimes  with  large  interest  for 
the  enforced  loan.  But  there  is  no  doubt  of  the  con- 
straining influence  in  this  respect  of  the  emperors  and 
the  monarchs  ;  and  there  is  little  doubt,  either,  that  the 
constraint  of  the  Papacy  was  largely  exercised  in  the  way 
of  endeavor  to  operate  upon  Christian  subjects  through 
Christian  princes  ;  that  is  to  say,  in  the  endeavor  to 
appropriate  to  itself  the  imperial  power,  which  is  an  addi- 
tional indication  of  the  pervading  instinct  of  ecclesiastical 
association  within  State  lines. 

It  was  one  of  the  most  notable  results,  and  causes,  also, 
it  might  be  said,  of  the  Reformation,  that  it  emphasized 
and  brought  distinctly  to  the  foreground  the  inherent 
independent  rights  of  national  Churches,  a  right  closely 
interwrapt  with  the  independency  of  individual  Bishops  ; 
for,  although  the  cause  of  national  Churches  was  the 
cause  of  groups  of  Bishops,  yet  that  cause  was  but 
the  cause  of  each  Bishop  in  that  group,  associated  in  the 


l8o  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY 

exercise  of  his  Divinely  given  commission  with  others 
holding  the  same  commission  equally  with  himself.  And 
nowhere  was  the  cause  of  national  Churches  more  fully 
professed,  or  more  earnestly  and  ably  maintained,  than 
in  England,  and  all  the  more  so  because  there,  more  than 
elsewhere,  it  carried  with  it  the  cause  of  the  right  of  the 
Bishops  to  exercise  the  authority  of  their  commission 
without  the  interference  or  intrusion  of  a  foreign  Bishop 
with  the  tyrannical  claim  of  universal  jurisdiction,  con- 
trary to  the  very  first  principles  of  the  Episcopate. 

IV.  But  the  constitution  of  civil  government  in  Eng- 
land was  of  a  different  character  from  that  of  civil 
government  in  most  of  the  nations  affected  by  the  Refor- 
mation ;  and  as  in  the  course  of  Divine  Providence  that 
constitution  developed  the  larger  interest  and  influence 
of  the  people,  so  by  degrees  the  form  of  the  Church 
representative  in  that  nation  came  to  share,  to  some 
extent,  the  characteristics  of  that  constitution,  and  not 
only  to  wear  the  appearance  of  similarity  to  the  civil 
government  in  its  forms  of  administration,  but  also  to  act 
upon  principles  of  representation  somewhat  analogous  to 
those  of  the  civil  system. 

And  here  one  finds  evident  traces  of  the  beginning  of 
that  period  wherein  the  Church  shows  its  capacity  for 
adaptation  to  the  republican  form  of  government  as 
well  as  to  the  monarchical  or  imperial.  For  although  the 
form  of  government  in  that  country  has  continued  to  be 
monarchical,  yet  in  respect  to  the  agency  of  the  whole 
body  of  the  community  in  the  direction  of  that  govern- 
ment, exercised  under  the  restraining  and  balancing 
effect  of  the  direct  agency  of  certain  classes  or  interests 
in  that  community,  it  bears  within  itself  the  spirit  of 
republican  institutions,  if  not  the  germ  of  an  ultimate 


iHE   CIVIL  ANALOGY.  181 

republican  form.  And  the  Church  representative  in 
that  country  has  in  like  manner  been  found  to  possess 
qualities  akin  to  those  of  the  State  in  its  recognition  of 
the  lay  influence,  not  only  as  represented  by  the  Crown, 
but  also  as,  at  least  at  one  period,  associated  with  its 
councils,  and  in  the  extension  of  the  representation  of 
its  constituent  parts,  so  that  the  clergy  have  a  distinct 
and  responsible  share  in  it  as  well  as  the  Bishops. 

With  regard  to  the  lay  influence  and  cooperation,  it 
would  seem  that  the  representation  of  it  was  not  always 
attached  exclusively  to  the  Crown.  Certainly  there  was 
an  early  custom  that  many  matters  relating  to  the  Church 
should  be  settled  in  councils  at  which  the  great  men 
of  the  land,  both  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  were  present, 
although  in  regard  to  matters  purely  spiritual  coming 
before  these  great  councils  the  ecclesiastics  were  wont 
to  go  apart  and  discuss  them,  and  then  to  return  and 
report  them  and  obtain  the  sanction  of  the  council,  as  a 
whole,  to  what  they  had  resolved.  And  through  the 
Saxon  times  the  ecclesiastical  synods  were  open  to  the 
inferior  clergy,  and  to  the  king  and  nobles,  who  sat,  how- 
ever, rather  as  witnesses  and  protectors  than  as  judges. 

The  system  of  the  Church  representative  in  England 
is  very  difficult  of  understanding.  It  has  a  complicated 
history,  in  which  it  will  be  easy  for  the  student  to  lose 
himself  ;  but  it  appears  to  be  plain  that  the  difficulties 
and  complications  have  grown  out  of  the  struggle  to 
maintain  the  nationality  of  the  Church,  and  to  preserve 
it  from  being  engulfed  in  the  imperial  maw  of  the 
Papacy.  Without  attempting  to  sketch  that  struggle,  or 
to  offer  an  explanation  of  the  system  as  a  whole,  it  may 
be  useful,  and  will  serve  the  purpose  of  the  present  dis- 
cussion, to  give  a  brief  account  of  the  synodical  constitu- 


1 82  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

tion  peculiar  to  it,  from  which  it  will  be  seen  that  it  has 
acquired  a  certain  extension  of  representation  not  found 
in  other  countries ;  which  will  appear,  in  the  subsequent 
account  of  the  American  system,  to  have  been  applied, 
with  still  further  extension,  in  accordance  with  the  civil 
system  of  that  country. 

The  original  constitution  of  the  larger  and  extra- 
diocesan  ecclesiastical  synods  having  been  Episcopal, 
and  the  attendance  of  Presbyters  in  them,  although  oc- 
casional, yet  clearly  exceptional  and  by  way  of  assistance 
— or  possibly  in  some  cases  substitution — the  properly 
ecclesiastical  synods  of.  England  appear  at  first  to  have 
been  constituted  in  the  same  manner.  But  from  the 
middle  of  the  thirteenth  century,  and  probably  before, 
the  ecclesiastical  synods  consisted  of  what  were  then 
called  greater  and  lesser  prelates,  Archbishops  and 
Bishops  being  the  greater,  and  Abbots,  Priors,  Deans, 
and  Archdeacons  the  less ;  to  which  were  sometimes 
added,  when  measures  particularly  concerned  their 
interests,  even  some  of  the  inferior  clergy.  The  greater, 
however,  in  these  synods  enacted,  while  the  lesser  ap- 
proved and  consented.  These  were  provincial  synods, 
and  in  process  of  time  began  to  be  called  and  influenced 
by  the  Pope,  who  summoned  them  directly,  or  through 
the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  as  his  Legate ;  and 
although  such  action  was  made  illegal,  yet  these  synods 
continued  thus  to  meet  until  they  were  extinguished  in 
the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.  by  what  is  known  as  the  Act  of 
Submission  ;  after  which  time  an  assembly  of  ecclesias- 
tical persons,  long  accustomed  to  meet  for  different  pur- 
poses, began  to  occupy  the  position  which  had  been  held 
by  them,  and  to  do  the  work  which  had  been  done  by  them, 
although  in  a  somewhat  different  manner.  The  Act  of 


THE   CIVIL  ANALOGY.  183 

Submission  having  been  the  death-blow  to  the  purely 
ecclesiastical  or  provincial  synods,  the  convocations,  as 
they  were  called,  naturally  succeeded  into  their  place  and 
functions  ;  being,  indeed,  largely  composed  of  the  same 
persons,  with  one  important  difference,  however,  that  the 
inferior  clergy  were  necessarily  present  by  representation 
(and  that  diocesan)  by  proctors  for  chapters  and  proctors 
for  clergy. 

The  convocation  as  distinguished  from  the  provincial 
synod  originated  in  the  reign  of  Edward  I.,  who  in  1282 
directed  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  to  call  his  Suf- 
fragans, Abbots,  and  other  ecclesiastical  officials  before 
him,  with  the  object  of  raising  money  by  their  consent 
to  the  taxation  of  their  property.  This  effort  not  being 
successful  was  by  and  by  accomplished  in  another  way, 
the  Archbishop  calling  the  Suffragans  to  a  provincial 
synod,  and  advising  them  to  treat  with  their  respective 
clergy  in  diocesan  synods  on  that  subject ;  and  after- 
wards providing  for  the  sending  up,  by  each  diocese,  of 
two  proctors  with  full  and  express  powers  to  treat  with 
him  and  his  brethren.  The  clergy,  though  at  first  ob- 
jecting to  this  attendance,  appear  by  degrees  to  have 
become  reconciled  to  it,  and  by  the  middle  of  the  four- 
teenth century  they  were  regularly  called,  as  a  matter  of 
course,  about  the  same  time  that  Parliament  met ;  so  that 
these  convocations  came  to  be  considered  the  ecclesias- 
tical parts  of  Parliament,  the  members  of  convocation 
taxing  the  clergy  in  a  manner  to  which  the  lay  Parlia- 
ment was  not  then  competent.  But  although  the  chief 
object  of  the  kings  was  raising  money,  yet  they  were 
disposed  also  to  make  these  convocations  available  as  a 
check  upon  the  provincial  synods  which  were  under  the 
Papal  influence. 


184  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

Thus  called  into  existence  for  the  civil  purpose  of 
taxation,  these  bodies  by  degrees  assumed  the  aspect, 
and  in  some  measure  performed  the  office,  of  a  Church 
assembly  for  Church  purposes  ;  but  this  not  as  legis- 
lators, but  as  petitioners,  presenting  their  specification  of 
things  complained  of,  or  to  be  reformed,  when  they  gave 
their  money.  They  comprised  not  only  the  Bishops  of  the 
dioceses,  but  a  distinct  representation  of  other  interests 
therein,  one  proctor  being  for  each  chapter,  and  two  for 
the  diocese  as  distinguished  from  the  chapter  ;  and 
though  their  sessions  were  at  first  together,  yet  since  the 
time  of  Henry  VIII.,  at  least,  they  were  divided  into  two 
houses,  the  Upper  House  consisting  of  Archbishop  and 
Bishops,  the  Lower  House  of  the  proctors.  The  latter 
being  subordinate  to  the  former  have,  however,  two  dis- 
tinctive rights  :  First,  that  of  submitting  to  the  Upper 
House,  for  presentation  to  the  Crown,  the  Schedule  of 
Gravamina  and  Reformanda;  second,  that  of  a  general 
negative  on  the  proceedings  of  the  Upper  House,  so 
that  nothing  can  become  a  synod  ical  act  without  their 
concurrence,  which  Gibson  calls  a  power  beyond  that  of 
the  Presbyters  of  other  nations.  From  the  time  of  Henry 
VIII.  until  1689,  matters  continued  in  this  relative  posi- 
tion ;  but  in  that  year  the  ground  began  to  be  taken  by 
the  Lower  House  (which  hitherto  had  been  strictly  sub- 
ordinate to  the  Upper)  of  an  independent  and  coordinate 
right,  making  themselves,  contrary  to  all  ecclesiastical 
precedent  at  home  and  abroad,  correspondent  to  the 
House  of  Commons  in  the  civil  system.  This  novel 
claim  gave  rise  to  many  angry  and  unseemly  disputes 
between  the  two  houses,  and  led  the  way  to  the  silencing 
of  convocation  by  the  Crown,  which  took  place  in  17  i-j. 
From  that  time  until  its  comparatively  recent  revival, 


THE   CIVIL  ANALOGY.  185 

about  1852,  convocation  was  always  summoned  at  the 
same  time  with  Parliament,  but  never  permitted  to  enter 
upon  business.* 

The  later  history  of  convocation  does  not  affect  the 
present  inquiry  ;  nor  need  the  former  history  have  been 
at  such  length  referred  to,  except  for  its  bearing  upon 
the  general  subject  of  the  tendency  of  the  Church  rep- 
resentative to  assimilate  itself  to  the  form  and  manner 
of  procedure  in  matters  of  civil  legislation  ;  and  also  for 
the  bearing  which  to  some  extent  it  may  have  had  upon 
the  American  system,  which  in  point  of  time  followed  it, 
and  by  the  founders  of  which  it  may  perhaps  have  been 
regarded  as  adding  some  sanction  of  ecclesiastical  prece- 
dent to  the  civil  analogies  by  which,  apparently,  they 
were  mainly  influenced  in  the  structure  of  their  synodical 
bodies,  after  the  independence  of  the  States,  consequent 
upon  the  Revolutionary  War,  devolved  upon  them  the 
task  of  organizing  a  distinct  ecclesiastical  polity. 

The  tracing  of  a  parallel,  however,  between  the  Eng- 
lish convocational  system  and  the  American  conven- 
tional system,  can  extend  no  farther  than  to  the  ascer- 
tainment of  the  common  characteristics  of  an  Upper,  or 
Episcopal  House,  and  a  Lower  House  consisting  of  a 


*  For  a  view  of  the  structure  of  convocation  (following  an  account 
of  English  provincial  councils  until  the  Act  of  Submission,  25  Henry 
VIII.,  and  a  history  of  that  Act),  see  Lathbury's  "  History  of 
Convocation,"  pp.  114-122.  Cf.  also  Kennett's  "Ecclesiastical 
Synods,"  ut  sup.  The  student  will  find  an  excellent  summary 
sketch  of  "  The  History  of  Convocation,"  drawn  apparently  from 
Kennett  ;  Gibson's  "Complete  History  of  Convocation,"  and 
Wake's  "Authority  of  Christian  Princes" — all  of  which  are  books 
not  easy  of  access — in  a  paper  contributed  to  Warren's  "  Synodalia," 
p.  135  (1853).  From  this  paper,  and  from  Kennett  and  Lathbury, 
the  above  account  has  been  chiefly  taken. 


1 86  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

diocesan  representation  by  clergy.  The  lay  element, 
except  as  supposed  to  be  represented  by  the  Crown,  is 
absent  from  the  English  system  ;  while  in  the  American 
system  it  is  made  equal  to  the  clerical  element  in  the 
Lower  House.  And  the  relative  position  of  the  two 
Houses,  in  the  beginning  of  the  American  system,  is 
entirely  a  reversal  of  that  of  the  two  Houses  in  the 
English  system.  In  the  English  system  the  Upper 
House  enacted,  the  Lower  House  having  a  negative  ;  in 
the  American  system  the  Lower  House  was  constituted 
the  enacting  power,  the  negative  being  given  to  the 
Upper,  or  Episcopal  House,  and  that  with  the  power 
reserved  to  the  Lower  House  to  overrule  it. 

It  is  true,  no  doubt,  that  human  systems  of  polity  are 
the  result  of  growth  and  adaptation,  and  that  they  are 
seldom  or  never  projected  from  nothing  antecedent. 
They  are  not  so  much  invented  as  adapted  and  applied. 
And  the  American  ecclesiastical  system,  although  con- 
taining many  things  new  in  the  use  which  was  then 
made  of  them,  is  no  exception  to  the  rule  ;  for  these 
things,  although  new  in  that  relation,  were  not  altogether 
new  in  themselves.  And  could  we  suppose  that  there 
was  no  other  model  of  representative  government  open 
to  the  observation  of  those  who  founded  this  system 
than  that  of  the  English  convocation,  we  might  imagine 
that,  upon  examination  of  this  system,  they  had  found 
it  expedient  to  take  from  it  the  idea  of  intrusting  legis- 
lation to  a  body  composed  of  two  Houses,  Episcopal 
and  Clerical,  and  to  improve  upon  that  model  by  adding 
the  representation  of  an  element  unrecognized  in  it,  and, 
by  then  reversing  its  mode  of  operation,  making  the 
head  in  the  new  system  occupy  the  place  of  the  feet  in 
the  former  system.  The  improbability  of  their  adoption 


THE   CIVIL  ANALOGY.  187 

of  such  a  mode  of  procedure,  in  view  of  their  actual  civil 
environment,  is  greatly  enhanced,  moreover,  by  the  con- 
sideration that  the  English  Convocation  at  the  time  of 
the  organization  of  the  American  system  was  rather  a 
thing  of  the  past  than  of  the  present.  Seventy  years 
had  elapsed  since  it  had  been  deprived  of  active  life,  and 
there  was  then  no  thought  of  its  restoration.  Its  mem- 
ory, of  course,  survived,  and  with  such  of  the  founders  of 
the  American  system  as  were  familiar  with  its  history 
it  might  naturally  have  had  a  certain  influence  as 
furnishing  in  some  sort  a  precedent  for  what  they 
were  doing  ;  but  beyond  that  dim  perception  of  asso- 
ciation we  can  hardly  suppose  its  influence  to  have 
extended. 

When  we  consider,  however,  that  those  who  were,  in 
the  course  of  Providence,  called  upon  to  organize  this 
system  of  polity,  were  living  in  a  time  when  the  whole 
civil  system  of  their  country  was  being  reorganized,  and 
that  many  of  those  who  were  eminent  in  the  councils  of 
the  Church  were  associated  also  with  its  civil  interests,  it 
certainly  is  no  violent  presumption  that  they  would  be 
in  some  degree  affected,  in  the  settlement  of  the  affairs 
of  the  Church,  by  the  civil  institutions  with  which  they 
were  familiar,  and  to  which  they  were,  for  the  most  part, 
greatly  addicted.  Nor,  in  view  of  the  tendencies  toward 
civil  analogy  exhibited  in  all  the  past  history  of  the 
Church,  is  it  other  than  what  might  naturally  be  ex- 
pected, that  the  scattered  members  of  the  body  of  the 
Church  in  these  States  should,  in  going  through  the 
process  of  organization,  be  affected  by  the  political 
maxims  and  theories  of  their  day  ;  and  that  those  who 
had  vindicated  their  right  to  a  truly  representative  gov- 
ernment as  the  safeguard  of  constitutional  liberty  in  the 


lB8  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

State,  should  be  solicitous  to  secure  the  same  end  in  the 
Church  by  similar  means.* 

To  this  a  priori  consideration  we  are  to  add  the 
observance  of  the  facts:  (i)  Of  the  position  of  the 
Church  in  this  country  at  the  time  of  the  organization  in 
view,  and  (2)  of  the  actual  institutions  then  established 
as  compared  with  the  civil  institutions  previously  com- 
pleted. 

i.  The  Church,  when  by  its  extension  from  the  Old 
World  it  effected  a  lodgement  in  this  country,  was,  in  the 
very  planting  of  it,  endowed  with  the  same  Episcopal  con- 
stitution which  was  inherent  in  the  original  stock  out  of 
which  it  grew.  But,  although  Episcopal  in  its  constitution, 
this  Church  was,  for  a  long  series  of  years — nearly  two 
centuries — to  a  great  extent  deprived  of  personal  contact 
with  Episcopal  government,  the  Church  in  the  colonies 
prior  to  the  Revolution  having  no  resident  Episcopate, 
and  being  regarded  as  an  appendage  to,  or  extension  of, 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Bishop  of  London.  The  result  of 
this  was  that  discipline  greatly  declined,  while  the  depend- 
ence of  the  several  congregations  upon  the  Episcopate 
became  almost  nominal.  A  Bishop  was,  indeed,  rarely 


*  "  The  connection  between  the  Heaven-guided  statesmen  who 
worked  out  for  us  the  problem  of  our  political  freedom,  and  the 
efforts  of  the  same  master-spirits  of  the  time  in  outlining  a  policy 
and  in  establishing  principles  that  make  our  Church,  freed  from  for- 
eign oversight  and  rule  by  the  war,  distinctively  American  in  the 
minutest  details  of  its  economy  and  organization,  are  established  facts 
of  history.  Of  the  two-thirds  of  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  who 
were  by  birth,  by  baptism,  by  family  connection,  or  by  personal 
affiliation,  Churchmen,  nearly  one-fifth  were  deputies  in  actual 
attendance  upon  the  early  General  or  State  Conventions  of  the 
Church." — The  Relations  of  the  Church  and  the  Country,  pp.  22,  23 
(1893),  by  WILLIAM  STEVENS  PERRY,  D.D.  (Oxon.),  Bishop  of  Iowa. 


THE   CIVIL  ANALOGY.  189 

seen  by  any  member  of  the  Church,  except  those  who 
performed  the  journey  of  three  thousand  miles  to  Eng- 
land for  the  purpose  of  receiving  Holy  Orders.  And  it 
was  not  to  be  wondered  at,  that  succeeding  generations 
should  grow  up  with  a  conception  of  the  Church  hardly 
reaching  beyond  that  of  a  number  of  independent  congre- 
gations, each  with  its  own  Presbyter.  The  dependence, 
too,  of  many  of  these  Presbyters  upon  the  venerable 
Society  for  Propagating  the  Gospel,  for  the  whole  or  a 
part  of  their  support,  and  their  status  as  missionaries  of 
that  Society,  rather  than  as  the  bearers  of  the  delegated 
authority  of  the  Bishops  as  the  chief  ministers  of  the 
common  flock,  probably  tended  to  obscure  still  further 
the  relation  of  the  parishes  to  the  Episcopate,  and  thus 
to  impress  men  more  strongly  with  the  congregational 
idea,  which  was  the  same,  by  the  way,  with  that  which 
underlay  the  administration  of  most  of  the  societies  of 
Puritan  origin  by  which  the  Church  was  surrounded. 
The  fact,  too,  that  property,  to  such  extent  as  it  was 
possessed  by  the  Church,  was  vested  in  the  congregations 
or  their  trustees,  helped  to  strengthen  this  congregational 
tendency  of  the  colonial  Church  ;  and  all  these  facts 
together  predisposed  it  to  the  formation,  when  the  time 
should  come,  of  some  system  in  which  the  body  of  the 
Church  should  act  by  representation,  instead  of  adhering 
to  the  system  of  being  governed  by  a  simply  Episcopal 
rule.* 

Not  less  plain,  nor  less  important,  is  the  fact  that  when 
the  time  did  come  for  the  formation  of  this  system,  the 
representation  by  which  the  Church  acted  in  the  process 

*  Cf.  "  Divine  Authority,  Catholic  Precedent,  Civil  Analogy." 
Discourse  by  W.  J.  Seabury.  Published  by  Mr.  James  Pott,  New 
York,  1880. 


19°  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY, 

of  organization  was  not  that  of  the  members,  or  even 
communicants,  of  the  Church,  numerically  considered,  nor 
yet  of  the  parishes  or  congregations  ;  but  of  groups  or 
collections  of  those  parishes,  considered  as  composed  of 
clergymen  and  laymen,  and  contained  within  certain 
ascertained  territorial  districts  ;  and  the  further  fact  that 
these  districts  were  several  of  those  colonies  which  had 
recently  been  recognized  by  Great  Britain  as  independent 
States. 

If  we  were  to  look  at  this  matter  of  representation 
abstractly,  and  draw  from  our  observations  an  inference 
as  to  what  the  manner  of  it  might  have  been,  or  might 
have  been  expected  to  be,  or  perhaps  ought  to  have  been, 
it  would  be  necessary  to  notice  two  considerations  as 
bearing  upon  the  probabilities  of  choice.  One  of  these 
is  the  moral  consideration  of  the  substantial  unity  of  the 
body  of  the  members  of  the  Church  of  England  in  the 
new-made  States,  corresponding  to  the  substantial  unity 
of  the  body  of  the  citizens  of  those  States,  as  being  gen- 
erally of  one  race,  and  of  a  common  inheritance  in  lan- 
guage and  civilization  ;  the  other  is  the  legal  or  political 
consideration  that  the  States,  as  such,  were  quite  inde- 
pendent of  each  other,  being  as  yet  held  only  by  the 
loose  and  ineffectual  bond  of  the  Confederacy,  and  that 
this  independence  of  the  States  involved  the  same  inde- 
pendence of  the  Church  within  those  States,  or  even 
greater,  there  being  then,  in  the  beginning  of  this  move- 
ment towards  association,  no  pretence  of  even  a  Confed- 
eracy ecclesiastical.  To  the  observation  of  this  moral 
consideration  in  the  case  of  the  Church,  might  be  added 
the  reflection  that  the  different  Episcopal  congregations 
in  the  colonies  had  known  no  union  before  the  Revolu- 
tion, except  that  of  their  common  connection  with  the 


THE   CIVIL  ANALOGY.  191 

Bishop  of  London ;  and  that  their  long-settled  habit  of 
desiring  a  Bishop  for  the  colonies,  there  being  only  the 
thought  of  providing  an  available  substitute  for  the 
Bishop  of  London  on  this  side  of  the  water,  would  tend, 
in  many  quarters,  in  the  direction  of  consolidating  the 
scattered  members  into  one  organization,  and  having  a 
Bishop,  or  perhaps  more  than  one,  for  the  superintend- 
ence of  the  whole,  and  would  naturally  obscure,  if  not 
exclude,  the  view  of  a  representation  of  the  Church 
within  the  States.  And  the  moral  consideration,  strength- 
ened by  this  reflection,  might  lead  us  to  infer  that  the 
constituency  represented  was  the  mass  of  the  Churchmen 
or  congregations  diffused  throughout  the  whole  region 
of  the  country,  which  would  seriously  affect  our  view  of 
the  nature  and  power  of  the  representative  body. 

To  this  process  of  abstract  reasoning,  men  are  much 
addicted ;  and  if,  in  making  use  of  it,  they  would  confine 
their  conclusions  to  the  potential,  and  not  transfer  them 
to  the  actual,  there  would  not  be  the  slightest  objection 
to  the  intellectual  exercise.  In  other  words,  if  they  would 
distinguish  between  what  they  think  ought  to  have  been 
done,  and  that  which  really  was  done,  much  confusion 
would  be  avoided.  It  is  well  known  that  the  same  pro- 
cess of  reasoning  has  been  used  in  respect  to  the  civil 
system,  and  that  the  conclusion  has  been  drawn  from  it, 
not  only  that  the  practical  unity  of  the  people  of  the 
States  made  it  expedient  for  them  to  be  united  under 
one  government,  but  ako  that  in  fact  they  did  act  as 
one  people  in  the  formation  of  a  government  responsible 
to  them  as  a  whole,  instead  of  being,  in  a  legal  and 
constitutional  point  of  view,  several  politically  distinct 
communities,  which  constituted,  for  common  purposes,  a 
common  government  involving  unity  of  authority  over 


192  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

the  individual  members  of  each  within  a  specified  sphere.* 
Nor  is  it  the  least  among  the  evidences  of  the  reality  of 
the  civil  analogies  of  the  Church  representative  in  this 
country,  that  we  find  not  only  similar  conditions  of  fact 
resulting  in  similar  actual  provisions,  but  also  tenden- 
cies to  the  use  of  this  abstract  reasoning  in  regard  to 
ihe  nature  and  powers  of  the  common  government  in  the 
Church,  similar  to  those  which  we  find  in  regard  to  the 
nature  and  powers  of  the  common  civil  government. 
These  two  schools  of  thought,  so  to  speak,  have  been 


*  This  characteristic  of  the  direct  bearing  of  the  general  govern- 
ment upon  the  individual  in  the  civil  system  of  the  United  States,  is 
indicated,  and  with  great  felicity  traced  to  its  origin,  in  thought  as 
well  as  action,  by  Chief  Justice  Shea  in  his  altogether  admirable 
treatise  on  the  "  Life  and  Epoch  of  Alexander  Hamilton  ''  (2d  ed. 
Riverside  Press,  Cambridge,  1880,  pp.  101-103).  "  The  family  was 
in  order  of  time  before  the  State,  and  the  State  is  a  combination  of 
fathers  and  masters  for  the  better  protection  of  themselves  and 
families.  Reason  points  us  to  this  as  the  probable  origin  of  political 
communities,  and  history  attests  the  fact  of  such  origin.  Like  as 
the  members  of  the  family  regard  its  chief  and  husband,  domus 
mnculuni,  so  does  the  individual  citizen  in  his  public  capacity  look 
to  the  State,  though  himself  an  essential  constituent  of  it,  as  a 
supreme  law  and  civil  governance.  Herein  we  have  not  only  the 
special  and  local  government  within  a  family  and  limited  to  its  own 
affairs,  but  we  have  a  general  government  comprehending  and  per- 
vading throughout,  all  at  once,  the  grand  aggregate,  supreme  in  its 
unity  and  in  its  universality  ;  each  a  government  bearing  directly  upon 
the  individual.  Herein  arises  the  feasible  and  practicable  system 
for  a  duality  of  government  over  the  same  territory  and  over  the 
same  people.  In  it  we  can  see  the  first  original  of  the  principle 
which  Hamilton  had  divined,  and  which  he  was  to  apply  to  the  sev- 
eral States  in  their  independent  operation  and  scope,  and  to  the 
same  States  in  empire.  He  saw  the  consequent  while  it  was  yet 
dormant  in  principle,  and  he  called  it  into  existence  and  organiza- 
tion." 


THE    CIVIL  ANALOGY.  193 

evident  in  the  civil  system  from  the  beginning,  and 
contemporary  with  them  have  been  the  same  schools  in 
that  branch  of  the  Church  representative  which  we  are 
now  considering — the  one  influenced  by  what  is  here 
called  the  moral  consideration  of  the  substantial  unity 
of  the  people  as  a  whole,  to  the  extent  of  ignoring  or 
denying  the  fact  of  the  political  discrimination  into  inde- 
pendent integral  parts  ;  the  other  influenced  by  the  legal 
consideration  of  the  necessity  of  voluntary  or  federative 
association  in  order  to  the  common  government  of  several 
communities,  each  one  whole  and  complete  in  itself, 
although  politically  composed  of  men  of  the  same  race 
or  the  same  religion  as  those  who  compose  the  other 
communities  with  which  they  are  politically  united.  And 
those  who  are  disciples  of  one  of  these  schools  in  the 
State,  are  almost  inevitably  found  to  be  disciples  of  the 
corresponding  school  in  the  Church. 

And  although  the  observations  here  introduced  may 
seem  to  be  somewhat  of  a  digression  in  an  inquiry  as  to 
facts,  yet  they  are  not  without  an  obvious  bearing  upon 
the  general  question  of  civil  analogy,  and  also  upon  the 
value  and  importance  of  the  facts  alleged,  that  in  the 
process  of  the  formation  of  our  ecclesiastical  organiza- 
tion the  representation  of  the  Church  was  not  that  of  a 
constituency  diffused  throughout  the  whole  region  covered 
by  the  system,  but  of  a  constituency  of  distinct  integral 
parts,  and  that  these  units  of  the  Church  system  were 
respectively  included  within  the  States  which  were  the 
units  of  the  civil  system. 

These  facts  evidently  appear  from  the  first  Journals 
of  the  General  Convention,  and  from  that  which  is  the 
best  source  of  information  on  this  subject,  the  Memoirs 
of  the  venerable  Bis'hop  White,  to  whom  belongs  the 


194  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

honor  of  having  been  the  father  of  this  system  of  rep- 
resentation. The  evidence  shows  that  although  there 
had  at  first — and  before  the  actual  independence  of  the 
States — been  only  the  idea  of  a  representative  body  com- 
bining the  clergy  and  representatives  of  congregations  in 
convenient  districts,  yet  that  in  1785,  when  there  was 
made  what  may  be  called  the  first  draft  of  the  constitu- 
tion afterwards  adopted,  the  idea  of  convenient  districts 
disappears,  and  along  with  it  the  other  ideas  which  had 
in  the  meantime  been  mooted,  of  associated  congrega- 
tions in  two  or  more  States,  and  of  reservation  of  powers 
to  the  clergy  and  laity  of  congregations  ;  and  the  ground 
taken  is  distinctly  that  of  the  Church  in  each  State  being 
represented,  and  having,  as  such,  one  vote  in  General 
Convention,  and  of  having  Bishops  provided  for  the  sev- 
eral States.*  The  same  provisions  appear,  with  changes 
not  affecting  the  point  of  the  Church  in  the  State  being 
the  thing  represented,  in  the  amended  draft  of  1786,  and 
in  the  completed  form  of  1789.  In  the  first  session  of 
the  Convention  of  1786,  it  is  resolved,  "  that  it  be  recom- 
mended to  the  Conventions  of  this  Church  in  the  several 
States  represented  in  this  Convention  that  they  authorize 
and  empower  their  deputies  to  the  next  General  Conven- 
tion ...  to  confirm  and  ratify  a  General  Constitu- 
tion, respecting  both  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America :  "f  a  provision  which  was  necessary,  because 
hitherto  what  had  been  done  rested  on  recommendation 
only.J  In  the  second  session  of  1786,  the  Convention, 
on  a  question  put,  decided  that  it  had  no  authority  to 


*  Articles  II.,  V.,  VI.,  VII.,  XL,  of  this  draft.     Bioren's  "  Jour- 
nals," p.  g.  f  Bioren's  ".Journals,"  p.  26. 

\  Bishop  White's  "  Memoirs,"  p.  96.     Cf.  pp.  80,  8l(2d  ed.,  1836). 


THE    CIVIL  ANALOGY.  195 

admit  as  members  persons  deriving  their  appointment 
not  from  a  State  convention  but  from  a  particular  parish 
or  parishes  only.*  In  the  first  session  of  1789,  the  mem- 
bers were  called  upon  to  declare  their  powers  relative  to 
the  resolution  of  1786,  which  had  recommended  their 
being  appointed  by  their  State  conventions  with  the  full 
power  to  confirm  and  ratify  a  General  Constitution,  and 
reported  that  they  came  fully  empowered.!  In  the  second 
session  of  this  year  the  Constitution  was  acceded  to  by 
the  representatives  of  the  Church  in  Connecticut,  and  in 
other  States  not  before  included  in  the  union. J  These 
citations  are  sufficient  to  establish  the  character  of  the 
constituency  of  the  representative  body  as  having  been 
that  of  the  Church  in  the  State  ;  and  the  fact  that  Con- 
necticut had,  since  the  year  1784,  been  a  complete  Church 
with  its  duly  consecrated  Bishop,  and  as  such  had  re- 
mained independent  of  this  union  §  until  it  voluntarily 
and  on  conditions  acceded  to  it ;  |  and  that  in  every  State 
it  was  contemplated  that  there  should  be  a  Bishop,^[  shows 
that  the  Church  in  the  State  was  not  only  regarded  as  the 
unit  of  the  representative  system,  but  also  regarded  as 
being  a  unit  of  a  Diocesan  character  ;  the  Church  in  each 
State  being  in  fact  a  Diocese,  either  (as  in  the  case  of 
Connecticut)  actually  provided  with  a  Bishop,  or,  as  in 
the  case  of  the  other  States,  temporarily  deprived  of  that 
with  which  it  was  intended  to  be,  and  soon  after  actually 
was,  provided.** 


*Bioren,  p.  39.  \  Bioren,  p.  48.  }:  Bioren,  p.  74. 

§  Bishop  White's  "Memoirs,"  p.  8l.  \  Bioren,  p.  74. 

T  Article  VI.,  1785,  1786  ;  Article  IV.,  1789.  Bioren,  pp.  9,  25,  76. 
**  Plan  for  obtaining  Consecration  of  Bishops,  adopted  in  session 
of  1785.     October  5th. 

"•First.  That  this  Convention  address  the  Archbishops  and  Bishops 


196  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

2.  If  we  look  now  at  the  institutions  actually  estab- 
lished in  this  organization,  or  formation  of  the  Church 

of  the  Church  of  England,  requesting  them  to  confer  the  Episcopal 
character  on  such  persons  as  shall  be  chosen  and  recommended  to 
them  for  that  purpose  from  the  Conventions  of  this  Church  in  the 
respective  States. 

"Secondly.  That  it  be  recommended  to  the  said  Conventions  that 
they  elect  persons  for  this  purpose. 

"  Thirdly.  That  it  be  further  recommended  to  the  different  Con- 
ventions, at  their  next  respective  sessions,  to  appoint  committees 
with  powers  to  correspond  with  the  English  Bishops  for  the  carrying 
of  these  resolutions  into  effect ;  and  that  until  such  committees  shall 
be  appointed,  they  be  requested  to  direct  any  communications  which 
they  ma}'  be  pleased  to  make  on  this  subject,  to  the  committee  con- 
sisting of  the  Rev.  Dr.  White,  President  ;  the  Rev.  Dr.  Smith,  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Provost,  the  Hon.  James  Duane,  Esq.,  and  Samuel  Powell 
and  Richard  Peters,  Esquires. 

"  Fourthly.  That  it  be  further  recommended  to  the  different  Con- 
ventions, that  they  pay  especial  attention  to  the  making  it  appear  to 
their  Lordships,  that  the  persons  who  shall  be  sent  to  them  for  con- 
secration are  desired  in  the  character  of  Bishops,  as  well  by  the  laity 
as  by  the  clergy  of  this  Church,  in  the  said  States  respectively,  and 
that  they  will  be  received  by  them  in  that  character  on  their  return. 

"  'Fifthly.  And  in  order  to  assure  their  Lordships  of  the  legality  of 
the  present  proposed  application,  that  the  Deputies  now  assembled  be 
desired  to  make  a  respectful  address  to  the  civil  rulers  of  the  States 
in  which  they  respectively  reside,  to  certify  that  the  said  application 
is  not  contrary  to  the  Constitutions  and  laws  of  the  same. 

"  Sixthly.     .     .     ."     Bioren,  pp.  II,  12. 

This  extract  from  the  order  of  the  Convention  of  October,  1785, 
proves  that  the  settlement  of  a  Bishop  in  each  State  was  the  purpose 
and  intent  of  the  framers  of  the  constitution  at  the  time  of  the  form- 
ulation of  their  first  draft  of  that  instrument,  and  that  they  recognized 
the  right  and  duty  of  the  States  to  proceed  in  that  matter. 

What  effect  the  course  already  pursued  in  Connecticut  may  have 
had  upon  the  settlement  of  this  intent  and  recognition,  clearly  dis- 
tinguishable from  the  previous  floating  ideas  of  arrangement  of  clergy 
and  laity  in  convenient  districts,  and  associated  congregations  in  two 


THE    CIVIL   ANALOGY.  197 

representative,  and  compare  them  with  the  civil  institu- 
tions previously  completed,  we  shall  find  a  series  of 

or  more  States,  one  can  only  conjecture.  But  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
and  therefore  of  historical  interest,  the  course  here  recommended  to 
the  conventions  of  the  Church  in  the  respective  States  had  been  already 
in  substance  complied  with  in  Connecticut ;  for  (i)  Dr.  Seabury  had 
been  elected  by  a  convention  of  the  Connecticut  clergy  at  Woodbury, 
March  25,  1783  ;  (2)  though  not  elected  by  the  laity,  he  had,  on  his 
return  from  Scotland  in  August,  1785,  been  received  in  the  character 
of  their  Bishop  implicitly  by  loyal  acceptance  of  him  as  such  ;  (3)  a 
committee  of  the  Convention  of  Connecticut,  qualified  to  represent 
the  Church  in  that  State,  had  respectfully  addressed  the  civil  rulers 
thereof  with  reference  to  the  attitude  of  the  civil  government  in 
respect  to  the  settlement  of  a  Bishop  in  that  State,  and  had  been 
assured  by  leading  members  of  both  houses  of  the  Assembly  that  the 
act  already  passed  by  the  Legislature  comprehended  all  the  legal 
rights  and  powers  intended  to  be  given  by  their  constitution  to  any 
denomination  of  Christians,  and  included  all  that  was  needed  for  the 
allowance  of  a  Bishop  within  the  State  ("  Conn.  Ch.  Documents," 
Hawks  &  Perry,  ii.  224-226) ;  and  (4)  the  first  and  third  of  these 
facts  were  certainly  with  due  diligence,  respect,  explanation,  and 
iteration  presented  to  "their  Lordships"  throughout  the  period  of 
sixteen  months  preceding  the  final  discouragement  of  the  Bishop- 
elect  in  that  quarter,  and  the  favorable  action  upon  the  request  of 
Connecticut  by  the  Bishops  of  the  Scottish  Church. 

The  influence  of  so  recent  and  conspicuous  an  example,  based  upon 
the  principle  recognized  by  the  Convention  of  October,  1785,  of  the 
right  and  duty  of  the  Church  in  each  State  to  seek  completion  in  the 
Episcopate,  is  certainly  worthy  of  consideration,  and  can  hardly  be 
overestimated. 

Indeed,  the  account  given  by  Bishop  White  of  these  resolutions, 
drafted  by  himself,  indicates  that,  as  to  one  point,  the  example  of 
Bishop  Seabury  served  at  least  as  a  warning.  "  As  to  Bishop  Sea- 
bury's  failure  in  England,"  he  says,  "  the  causes  of  it,  as  stated  in  his 
letter,  seemed  to  point  out  a  way  of  obviating  the  difficulty  in  the 
present  case."  And  he  adds  :  "It  was  a  prudent  provision  for  the 
Convention  to  instruct  the  deputies  from  the  respective  States  to 
apply  to  the  civil  authorities  existing  in  them  respectively  for  their 


I98  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

parallels  which  it  would  be  unreasonable  to  regard  as 
accidental,  or  other  than  evidence  of  an  intentional  con- 
formity or  adaptation  of  the  Church  in  the  arrangement 
of  its  external  administration  to  the  civil  system  in  which 
its  lot  was  cast.  Some  learned  Bingham  of  a  future 
century  will  very  probably  observe,  that  to  understand 
aright  the  state  and  division  of  this  Church,  it  will  be 
proper  to  take  a  short  view  of  the  state  and  division  of 
the  Republic  of  the  United  States,  since  it  plainly  held 
some  conformity  to  that  in  its  external  policy  and  gov- 
ernment, both  at  its  first  settlement  and  in  the  changes 
and  variations  which  were  made  in  after  ages  ;  though 
in  these  matters  of  conveniency  and  outward  order  the 
Church  did  not  tie  itself  absolutely  to  follow  that  model, 
but  only  so  far  as  it  judged  expedient  and  conducive  to 
the  ends  of  its  own  spiritual  government  and  discipline. 
It  will  be  necessary,  however,  for  this  prospective  histo- 
rian impartially  to  record  the  fact,  that  there  were  in  this 
Church  some  persons  replete  with  godly  and  good  learn- 
ing who  could  never  be  brought  to  see  this  conformity  ; 
and  who,  contrary  to  all  the  teachings  of  history,  in 
which  they  were  well  versed,  persisted  in  thinking  that 
this  Church  was  an  exception  to  the  general  rule  of  civil 
analogy  which  had  prevailed  from  the  time  of  the  Apos- 

sanction  of  the  measure,  in  order  to  avoid  one  of  the  impediments 
which  had  stood  in  the  way  of  Bishop  Seabury."  ("  Memoirs,"  pp. 
101,  102.)  From  the  statement  in  Bishop  Seabury's  letter,  however, 
to  which  Bishop  White  apparently  refers,  it  appears  that  something 
more  than  sanction  was  exacted  in  his  case,  to  wit,  "  a  formal  requi- 
sition from  the  State.*'  (Cf.  Bishop  Seabury's  letter,  printed  in  the 
"  Memoirs,"  pp.  286-292.)  Obviously,  the  Connecticut  case  was  well 
in  mind,  and  its  lessons  were  inwardly  digested.  Nor  was  the  Con- 
vention of  1785  the  only  pupil  in  the  school  of  prudence — though 
that  belongs  to  another  subject. 


THE    CIVIL   ANALOGY.  199 

ties  to  its  foundation,  and  that  there  was  something 
derogatory  to  its  claim  to  a  true  Apostolicity  and  Catho- 
licity in  the  admission  of  such  a  possibility. 

Perhaps,  however,  instead  of  following  the  method  of 
Bingham  and  endeavoring  to  take  a  view  of  the  state 
and  division  of  the  Republic  of  the  United  States,  and 
a  corresponding  view  of  the  arrangement  of  the  Church, 
it  will  be  more  simple  and  brief  to  state  directly  the 
parallels  which  have  been  referred  to,  pointing  out  the 
correspondence  in  these  particulars. 

(a)  In  the  first  place  there  is  to  be  noted  the  parallel 
of  federation.  It  has  already  been  pointed  out,  that,  in 
the  process  of  arranging  a  common  government  for  the 
Church  in  this  country,  the  Church  was  recognized  as 
having  an  independent  existence  in  the  respective  States. 
This  independence  was  of  a  similar  character  to  that 
which  has  been  noticed  as  belonging  to  the  individual 
Bishop,  or  to  the  Diocese  of  primitive  times  ;  that  is  to 
say,  it  was  not  an  absolute  independence,  which  made  its 
possessor  capable  of  being  or  doing  anything  that  might 
be  desired.  It  involved  no  freedom  from  the  analogy  of 
the  common  faith  and  order  of  Christ's  institution,  but 
within  the  restraints  of  that  common  faith  and  order,  the 
Church  in  each  State  was  free  and  independent  of  the 
control  of  the  Church  in  any  other  State.  The  associa- 
tion for  the  purpose  of  a  common  government  was  an 
association  by  representation  ;  and  the  constituency  of 
that  representation  was  the  Church  in  the  State.  There 
was  no  common  power  with  recognized  authority  to 
direct  or  enforce,  or  even  constrain  and  influence,  these 
constituencies  to  a  common  association.  The  associa- 
tion was  therefore  voluntary  and  federative. 

Bishop  White  makes  some  observations  upon  the  point 


200  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

of  the  need  and  motive  of  the  organization  of  the 
Ecclesiastical  Union,  which  it  will  be  useful  and  inter- 
esting to  consider  here,  on  account  of  the  important  and 
suggestive  bearing  which  they  have  upon  the  question 
of  the  nature  of  the  constituency  of  which  that  union 
was  composed.  In  defending  the  policy  of  organiza- 
tion which  had  been  acted  on,  against  a  prejudice  noted 
on  the  part  of  some,  that  nothing  should  be  done  in 
this  direction  until  the  obtaining  of  the  Episcopacy,  he 
says  : 

"  Certainly  the  different  Episcopal  congregations  knew 
of  no  union  before  the  Revolution,  except  what  was  the 
result  of  the  connection  which  they  in  common  had  with 
the  Bishop  of  London.  The  authority  of  that  bishop 
being  withdrawn,  what  right  had  the  Episcopalians  in 
any  State,  or  in  any  one  part  of  it,  to  choose  a  bishop  for 
those  in  any  other  ?  And  until  an  union  were  effected, 
what  is  there  in  Christianity  generally,  or  in  the  prin- 
ciples of  this  Church  in  particular,  to  hinder  them  from 
taking  different  courses  in  different  places,  as  to  all  things 
not  necessary  to  salvation  ?  Which  might  have  produced 
different  liturgies,  different  articles,  Episcopacy  from 
different  sources,  and,  in  short,  very  many  churches,  in- 
stead of  one  extending  over  the  United  States  ;  and  that 
without  any  ground  for  the  charge  of  schism  or  of  the 
invasion  of  one  another's  rights.  The  course  taken  has 
embraced  all  the  different  congregations.  It  is  far  from 
being  certain  that  the  same  event  would  have  been  pro- 
duced by  any  other  plan  that  might  have  been  devised. 
For  instance,  let  it  be  supposed  that  in  any  district  in 
Connecticut  the  clergy  and  the  people,  not  satisfied  with 
the  choice  made  of  Bishop  Seabury  or  with  the  con- 
templated plan  of  settlement,  had  acted  for  themselves 


THE    CIVIL  ANALOGY.  2OI 

instead  of  joining  with  their  brethren.  It  would  be 
impossible  to  prove  the  unlawfulness  of  snch  a  scheme ; 
or,  until  an  organization  were  made,  that  the  minor  part 
were  bound  to  submit  to  the  will  of  the  majority.  There 
was  no  likelihood  of  such  an  indiscreet  proceeding  in 
Connecticut ;  but  in  some  other  departments  which  might 
be  named  it  would  not  have  been  surprising.  Let  it  be 
remarked  that  in  the  preceding  hypothesis  there  is  sup- 
posed to  have  been,  in  the  different  neighborhoods,  a 
bond  of  union  not  dissolved  by  the  Revolution.  This 
sentiment  is  congenial  with  Christianity  itself  and  with 
Christian  discipline  in  the  beginning,  the  connection  not 
existing  congregationally,  but  in  every  instance  without 
dependence  on  the  houses  in  which  the  worship  of  the 
different  portions  of  the  aggregate  body  may  be  carried 
on." — Memoirs,  pp.  98,  99. 

The  venerable  Bishop's  opinion,  that  the  withdrawal  of 
the  authority  of  the  Bishop  of  London  involved  the  pos- 
sibility of  the  assertion  of  individual  and  congregational 
independence  is  in  itself  true,  and  his  attributing  to  or- 
ganization the  effectual  power  of  preserving  order  and 
preventing  that  chaos  is  also  true.  Without  organization 
nothing  could  have  hindered  the  production  and  perpet- 
uation of  that  diversity  which  he  forecasts.  By  organi- 
zation he  evidently  intends  the  Ecclesiastical  Union.  But 
whether  that  particular  organization  was  necessary  to 
prevent  the  disintegration  which  he  describes,  to  the  ex- 
tent to  which  he  apprehends  it,  must,  of  course,  depend 
upon  the  previous  question  whether  any  organization 
apart  from  such  union,  and  in  the  several  members  of  it, 
was  antecedently  possible,  or  probable.  The  want  of  the 
organization  of  the  Union  would,  of  course,  have  made 
possible  the  continuance  of  independent  existence  in 


202  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

its  several  parts.  The  fact  of  organization  in  any  of  those 
parts  would  have  been  as  effectual  a  preservative  against 
such  individualism  in  that  part,  as  the  Union  proved  to 
be  against  the  extension  of  the  same  evil  in  other  parts. 
The  hypothesis  in  the  case  of  Connecticut  can  only  be 
in  part  admitted  to  be  lawfully  possible.  If  the  clergy 
by  whom  Bishop  Seabury  was  elected  were  not  in  a 
proper  sense  representative  of  the  Church  in  Connecticut, 
the  case  of  differing  action  by  such  part  of  the  Church 
in  that  State  as  was  not  represented  might  be  supposable  ; 
but  since  the  clergy  were  the  clergy  of  the  Church  in 
that  State,  ten  out  of  fourteen  acting,  and  the  other  four 
not  objecting,  the  proceeding  involves  such  organization 
in  that  State  as  would  prevent  the  diversity  supposed 
lawfully  possible  by  Bishop  White.  An  opposing  organi- 
zation by  laymen  in  that  State,  had  such  indiscretion 
been  supposable,  would  have  been  schism  pure  and 
simple.  The  clergy  had  jurisdiction  over  their  people, 
received  by  their  ordination  and  lawful  settlement ;  and 
when  their  Bishop  was  withdrawn  from  them,  their  duty 
to  their  people  involved  and  justified  their  proceeding 
to  procure  another.  So  much  power  of  organization  must 
be  on  Church  principles  presumed  to  have  been  inherent 
in  the  clergy  of  any  district,  for  preserving  themselves 
and  their  people  in  the  unity  of  the  Church  Catholic  ; 
although  the  association  would  involve  no  obligation 
upon  those  in  other  parts  or  districts  to  conform  to  them. 
But,  given  the  fact  of  such  association  in  one  part,  the 
combination  of  this  part  with  similar  associations  in  other 
parts  in  an  Ecclesiastical  Union  prevented  the  diversity 
of  rule  and  usage  in  all  the  parts,  or  in  the  lesser  elements 
of  which  they  were  respectively  composed  ;  and  there 
is,  probably,  no  other  possible  course  which  would  have 


THE   CIVIL   ANALOGY.  203 

been  at  all  likely  to  produce  the  same  result,  as  Bishop 
White,  with  his  usual  practical  wisdom,  discerned. 

In  fact,  that  which  saved  the  Church  from  the  diversity, 
if  not  disintegration,  which  is  here  so  clearly  indicated, 
was  the  organization  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Union,  as  being 
the  combination  of  organizations  of  a  diocesan  character 
within  the  States.  It  is  very  possible,  indeed,  that  Bishop 
White,  for  his  part,  regarded  such  combination  as  furnish- 
ing only  the  most  feasible  mode  of  carrying  into  effect 
his  original  project  of  clergy  and  laity  organized  in  con- 
venient districts.  It  is  even  probable  that,  in  his  own 
personal  views,  he  regarded  the  adoption  of  this  mode 
as  a  condescension  and  concession  to  what,  in  the  latter 
part  of  his  life,  he  called  "that  excessive  attachment  to 
the  peculiarities  of  the  different  States,"  above  which, 
"  when  the  constitution  was  framed,  the  public  mind  had 
not  yet  raised  itself  "  (p.  391).  From  whatever  height, 
however,  he  may  have  viewed  the  mode,  he  could  not 
'overlook  it,  nor  do  better  than  utilize  what  he  could  not 
alter  ;  and,  accordingly,  this  was  the  actual  mode  by 
which  organization  was  enabled  to  constitute  the  Eccle- 
siastical Union.  Most  likely  the  Connecticut  example 
crystallized  the  diocesan  State  idea,  which  was  em- 
bedded in  the  public  mind  of  the  day.  But,  from  what- 
ever influences,  there  it  was,  in  the  ore  of  the  system 
when  it  was  first  moulded  into  the  form  which  it  ever 
after  retained.  And  while,  in  the  process,  we  may  grate- 
fully attribute  much  to  the  wisdom  of  the  policy  of  influ- 
ential men,  we  must  attribute  still  more  to  the  overruling 
hand  of  the  Divine  Providence  which  had  prepared  the 
way  for  these  men  to  walk  in  ;  and  which  they  could  not 
help  following,  if  they  simply  acted  upon  the  principles 
which  were  inherent  in  the  system  under  which  they  were 


204  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

living.  These  principles  were  mainly  and  eminently 
three  in  number,  and  they  are  very  important  to  be 
noted.  They  were  : 

1.  The  principle  of  neighborhood  ;    of  which  Bishop 
White  well  remarks  that  it  constituted,  in  the  present 
case,  "  a  bond  of  union  not  dissolved  by  the  Revolution 

congenial  with  Christianity  itself,  and  with 
Christian  discipline  in  the  beginning  ;  "  in  which  dis- 
cipline the  jurisdiction  of  the  single  Bishop  was  called 
his  TtapoiKici,  for  that  very  reason,  because  it  in- 
cluded the  neighborhood  of  the  place  where  his  seat 
was. 

2.  The  principle  of  allegiance  to  civil  rulers  ;  by  which 
the  extent  or  limit  of  neighborhood  becomes  more  settled 
and  ascertainable  ;  neighborhood,  like  every  other  qual- 
ity, being  comparative  ;  and  requiring,  for  purposes  of 
organization,  some  determination  and  settlement.     This 
was  easily  suggested,  and  naturally  furnished  by  the  claim 
of  the  civil  authority  existing  in  the  State  to  the  alle- 
giance of  all  who  were  within  the  circuit  Of  that  common 
obligation  ;  and  was  emphatically  singled  out  and  dis- 
criminated from  combinations  of  smaller  range  by  the 
association  of  those  States  as  the  units  of  the  larger  com- 
bination of  the  civil  union. 

3.  The  principle  of  dependence  upon  the  Episcopate  ; 
the  jurisdiction  of  which,  naturally,  and  in  accordance 
with  the  Divinely  inspired  policy  manifest  in  the  original 
settlement  of  the  Christian  Church,  has  an  affinity  to  the 
civil  jurisdiction  ;  seizing  instinctively  upon  the  salient 
points  of  the  civil  administration  and   operating  from 
them  ;  the  same  instinct  which  settled  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  Bishop  in  the  chief  city  of  the  province  of  primitive 
times,  being  here  apparent  in  the  association  of  the  same 


THE   CIVIL  ANALOGY.  205 

jurisdiction  with  the  State,  as  the  conspicuous  unit  of  the 
civil  system  in  the  time  of  this  organization. 

These  are  principles  of  such  a  nature  as  to  have  a  sure, 
though  silent,  and  in  part  unrecognized,  influence.  They 
are  principles  able  to  have  produced  the  consequence 
which  in  fact  took  place,  being  so  congenial  to  the  causes 
of  results  accomplished  that  it  is  difficult  to  separate  them. 
That  they  were  chiefly  instrumental  in  guiding  the  steps 
of  Bishop  White  himself,  seems,  from  the 'progress  and 
issue  of  the  history,  impossible  to  doubt.  He  being  in 
the  way,  the  Lord  led  him  to  the  house  of  his  Master's 
brethren. 

The  jurisdiction  of  the  English  Episcopate,  which,  prior 
to  the  Revolution,  had  such  a  recognized  common  au- 
thority as  made  the  formal  federative  association  of  the 
Church  in  the  colonies  unnecessary,  and  the  withdrawal  of 
which  opened  the  way  for  those  possibilities  of  disinte- 
gration which  were  so  apparent  to  Bishop  White,  being 
incapable  of  exercise  during  the  war,  had  been  in  abey- 
ance :  and  at  the  close  of  the  war  it  was  still  incapable 
of  exercise,  and  all  claim  to  it  was  abandoned.  And,  the 
Church  in  each  State  being  in  the  position  of  a  Diocese 
temporarily  deprived  of  its  Diocesan,  each  State  had  a 
right  to  seek  its  own  completion  by  obtaining  a  Bishop 
from  those  qualified  to  consecrate  him  ;  and  it  had  also 
the  right  to  associate  itself  with  the  Church  in  other 
States  first,  and  procure  its  completion  by  the  addition 
of  the  Episcopate  afterwards.  Had  the  first  course  been 
pursued  by  all,  they  would  all  have  been  united  by  the 
federation  of  their  Bishops,  acting  in  the  ordinary  course 
of  the  Episcopate  in  the  way  of  common  association, 
whenever  and  in  so  far  as  circumstances  might  require 
such  association  ;  and  as  the  obtaining  of  the  Episcopate 


206  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

was  a  work  of  time,  involving  much  doubt  and  anxiety, 
the  same  right  of  association  cannot  be  denied  to  have 
been  possessed  by  the  churches  preparatory  to  the  ac- 
quirement of  Bishops.  In  fact,  the  right  to  move  in 
both  these  directions  not  only  existed,  but  was  recog- 
nized and  exercised.  And  it  is  to  this  providential  fact 
that  we  owe  the  blending  of  the  two  ideas  which  are 
fundamental  in  our  complex  system,  and  without  dis- 
cernment of  which  we  shall  fail  to  find  the  clue  to  it. 
For  the  Episcopal  system,  which  contemplates  a  com- 
mission to  govern  proceeding  from  the  Head  downward, 
and  the  conventional  system,  which  contemplates  a  per- 
mission to  govern  proceeding  from  the  members  upward, 
are  here  combined  in  one  ;  and  together  produce  a  gov- 
ernment wherein  the  just  authority  steadies  itself  by  the 
consent  of  the  governed.  And  what  we  owe  to  Connec- 
ticut for  the  courageous  faith  which  acted  on  the  one 
idea,  is  balanced  by  what  we  owe  to  Pennsylvania  for 
the  devout  wisdom  which  acted  on  the  other. 

The  Church  in  the  State  of  Connecticut  sought  first  to 
complete  itself  by  procuring  a  Bishop,  Dr.  Seabury  being 
elected  to  that  office  by  the  Connecticut  clergy  on  the 
Feast  of  the  Annunciation  in  1783,  and  being  received  by 
the  clergy  and  laity  of  that  Church  as  their  Bishop  on  his 
return  to  that  State  after  consecration  (November  14, 
1784)  by  the  Bishops  of  "the  Catholic  remainder  of  the 
ancient  Church  of  Scotland;  "  and  thus  completely  consti- 
tuted, the  Church  in  Connecticut  awaited  the  issue  of  the 
movement  in  other  States,  and  in  due  time,  being  satis- 
fied that  sufficient  safeguards  were  provided  for  the 
preservation  of  the  common  faith  and  order,  accepted 
the  invitation  of  those  churches  in  other  States  which 
had  already  associated  themselves,  and  in  1789  attached 


THE   CIVIL   ANALOGY.  207 

itself  to  the  union  thus  formed.*  The  case  of  Connecti- 
cut alone,  and  the  history  of  its  relation  to  the  movement 
for  the  union  of  the  churches  in  other  States,  is  sufficient 
to  establish  the  federal  idea  in  that  union,  and  to  show 
that  it  was  the  absolutely  controlling  moral  force  in  the 
establishment  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Union.  But  that  the 
case  of  Connecticut  is  not  solitary  in  this  evidence  ap- 
pears from  the  facts,  first,  that  the  movement  towards 
the  association  accomplished  in  1789  began  to  take  shape 
in  a  voluntary  meeting  of  clergymen  of  New  York,  New 
Jersey,  and  Pennsylvania  in  May,  1784,  who  determined 
to  procure  a  larger  meeting  in  the  October  following,  "  to 
confer  and  agree  on  some  general  principles  of  an  union 
of  the  Episcopal  Church  throughout  the  States  ;  "  f  second, 
that  the  movement  proceeded  through  the  combination 
of  the  churches  in  seven  only  of  the  thirteen  then  exist- 
ing States  ;  J  and  third,  that  the  body  representing  the 

*  It  should  not  be  understood  from  this  statement  that  either  the 
Bishop  or  the  Diocese  of  Connecticut  in  any  way  held  aloof  from  the 
Union,  or  cherished  ideas  of  opposition  to  it.  The  case  was  quite 
otherwise.  But  certain  grave  apprehensions  of  unchurchly  tendencies 
in  the  Middle  and  Southern  States  were  entertained  in  the  Eastern 
States.  Bishop  White  thought  that  these  were  not  altogether  well- 
founded,  but  they  existed,  and  the  attitude  described  in  the  text  re- 
sulted. Bishop  Seabury  addressed  a  letter  of  welcome,  expressive 
of  his  desire  to  cooperate,  both  to  Bishop  White  and  Bishop  Pro- 
vost, immediately  upon  their  return  home  after  consecration  in  1787. 
Bishop  White  replied  with  courtesy,  though  with  seeming  coolness  ; 
Bishop  Provost  apparently  not  at  all.  Organization  had  been  pro- 
ceeding in  both  quarters.  Each  invited  the  other  to  conference. 
The  organization  in  Connecticut  was  at  this  time  complete.  That 
of  the  Church  in  other  States  was  still  in  process  of  completion. 
After  it  was  actually  complete  for  the  churches  engaged  in  it,  i.e., 
in  August,  1789,  the  invitation  by  it  to  Connecticut  was  accepted. 

f  Bishop  White's  "  Memoirs,"  p.  22.  \  Ib.,  p.  22. 


208  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

churches  in  these  seven  States,  in  1786  appointed  a  com- 
mittee to  forward  its  minutes  and  proceedings  "  to  the 
Eastern  and  other  churches  not  included  in  this  union,  to 
notify  to  them  the  time  and  place  to  which  this  conven- 
tion shall  adjourn,  and  request  their  attendance  at  the 
same  for  the  good  purposes  of  union  and  general  govern- 
ment." *  The  churches  in  the  States  other  than  the  first 
seven  acceded  to  the  union  at  different  times  afterward, 
the  accession  of  North  Carolina  not  taking  place  until 
many  years  after  the  accession  of  Connecticut.  The 
federal  character  of  this  Ecclesiastical  Union  is  indeed 
so  plain  that  it  seems  an  unnecessary  weariness  to  go 
over  the  tedious  labor  of  producing  evidence  for  it. 
Nothing  but  what  the  future  Bingham  must  inevitably 
regard  as  the  extraordinary  pre-judgment  of  some  most 
honored  and  most  learned  churchmen  who,  under  the 
bias  of  a  misconceived  and  misapplied  analogy  between 
the  General  Convention  of  this  Church  and  the  national 
or  provincial  councils  of  churches  of  other  times,  have 
thought  it  necessary  to  find  in  that  representative  body 
the  inherent  sovereignty  which  they  seem  erroneously 
to  have  attributed  to  other  conciliary  bodies  of  the 
Church,  could  prevent  the  obvious  conclusion  from 
the  facts  of  history  that  what  was  here  constituted  in 
1789  was  an  Ecclesiastical  Union,  accomplished  by  the 
federation  of  independent  churches,  potentially  if  not 
actually  complete,  and  that  the  governing  body  brought 
into  existence  by  that  federation,  although  absolutely 
supreme  within  the  sphere  appointed  to  it,  was  the 
recipient  of  powers  delegated,  and  not  the  source  or 
origin  of  powers  inherent. 


*  Bioren's  Ed.  "Journals  of  Gen.  Conv.,''  p.  64. 


THE   CIVIL  ANALOGY.  209 

And  in  regard  to  the  civil  system,  and  the  essentially 
federal  character  of  its  original  organization,  the  simple 
facts — apart  from  the  use  to  which  in  practice  they  may 
have  been  subjected — are  these  :  First,  that  the  American 
Colonies  united  themselves  in  a  confederacy,  of  which 
they  were  respectively  the  independent  component  parts  ; 
second,  that  they  were,  at  the  conclusion  of  the  Revolu- 
tionary war,  formally  recognized  by  Great  Britain  as 
free,  sovereign,  and  independent  States ;  *  and  third, 


*  "  His  Britannic  Majesty  acknowledges  the  said  United  States, 
viz.  :  New  Hampshire,  Massachusetts  Bay,  Rhode  Island  and  Provi- 
dence Plantations,  Connecticut,  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania, 
Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and 
Georgia,  to  be  Free,  Sovereign,  and  Independent  States  ;  that  he 
treats  with  them  as  such  ;  and  for  himself,  his  heirs  and  successors, 
relinquishes  all  claim  to  the  government,  propriety,  and  territorial 
rights  of  the  same,  and  every  part  thereof  "  (Art.  I.,  Treaty  of  Peace 
of  1783)- 

Had  it  not  been  necessary  that  this  acknowledgment  should  be  of 
the  States  respectively  constituting  the  United  States,  it  would  have 
been  the  simple  and  obviously  sufficient  course  to  have  acknowledged 
the  nation  of  the  United  States  to  be  a  free  and  independent  sover- 
eignty. But  in  fact,  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  as  is  well  remarked 
by  Chief  Justice  Shea,  "did  not  make  nor  leave  the  United  States  a 
nation  ;  except  on  the  presupposition  which,  by  a  sort  of  theory, 
enabled  them  to  act  as  such  in  their  first  diplomatic  negotiation  with 
England  "  ("  Life  and  Epoch  of  Alexander  Hamilton,"  p.  63). 

"The  commissioners  felt  that  the  very  idea  of  nationality  in  the 
negotiation  of  a  treaty  was  desirable  and  necessary.  To  the  English 
the  point  was  one  of  procedure  merely.  Not  so  to  the  United 
States.  The  negotiations  finally  went  on  with  the  Office  for  Foreign 
Affairs.  Those  and  other  statesmen  were  not  deceived.  It  was 
better  policy  though,  just  then,  to  act  upon  the  apparent,  rather  than 
to  insist  upon  the  real,  fact.  To  the  exterior  world  the  United 
States  presented  the  semblance  of  unity.  Between  the  States  them- 
selves it  was  scarcely  acknowledged.  The  unity  of  the  States  in  any 


210  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

that  in  the  exercise  of  this  freedom,  sovereignty,  and 
independence,  with  respect  to  each  other,  and  to  all  other 
states  or  kingdoms  of  this  world,  they  proceeded,  after 
years  of  deliberation  and  consideration,  voluntarily,  though 
after  much  persuasion  and  hesitation,  to  form  a  more 
perfect  union  than  they  had  before  constituted,  by  which 
they  established  a  general  government,  which  was  clothed 
with  powers  supreme  within  the  sphere  appointed  to  it — 
having  what  it  is  believed  no  mere  confederacy  ever  had, 
and  what  certainly  the  American  Confederacy  had  not, 
the  authority  to  act  within  its  sphere  upon  the  individual 
directly  and  immediately,  instead  of  indirectly  and  medi- 
ately through  the  several  States  united — and  yet,  with  all 
its  supremacy,  not  having,  as  in  the  nature  of  things  it 
could  not  have,  one  single  power  inherent  in  it  and  not 
delegated  to  it. 

The  proper  application  of  these  facts  to  questions  of 
the  relations  of  the  States  between  themselves,  and  of 
the  relations  of  the  General  Government  both  to  the 
States  and  to  their  individual  members,  lies  within  the 
range  of  the  responsibility  of  those  whose  duty  it  is  to 
administer  the  affairs  of  government.  It  is  of  the  nature 
of  those  things  which,  in  accordance  with  the  precept  of 
the  Divine  Master,  we  may  cheerfully  "  render  unto 
Caesar."  But  when  in  the  course  of  the  Divine  Provi- 
dence Caesar  has  been  transmuted  from  an  individual 
to  a  multiform  personality,  and  diffused  among  the  com- 
munity, as  is  the  case  where  the  sovereignty  of  the  civil 
authority  is  recognized  as  lodged  in  the  people,  it  must 


national  sense  was  an  empty  theory.  Pride,  policy,  and  patriotism 
had  nerved  the  American  commissioners  to  insist  on  the  ideal.  But 
they  knew,  and  intelligent  people  in  Europe  knew,  that  the  thing 
itself  did  not  exist  "  (Ib.,  p.  66). 


THE    CIVIL  ANALOGY.  211 

needs  be  that  such  questions  will  be  determined  by  the 
judgment  of  the  people,  under  such  influences  of  reason 
as  may  from  time  to  time  be  brought  to  bear  upon  them, 
under  the  exigencies  to  which  they  may  from»time  to 
time  be  subjected.  The  love  of  country  is  an  instinct  of 
human  nature  ;  nor,  indeed,  is  the  law  from  which  it 
springs  limited  in  its  operation  only  to  man.  Even  the 
brute  creation  is  conscious  of  the  home  feeling  ;  while 
the  growth  and  verdure  of  the  plant  which  adorns  the 
surface  of  the  earth,  and  the  form  and  nature  of  the 
mineral  which  fills  the  vast  storehouse  of  subterranean 
recesses,  are  affected  by  their  relation  to  the  region  to 
which  the  Creator  has  appointed  them.  But  the  kindred 
instinct  in  man  is  possessed  and  used  by  him  as  a  being 
endowed  with  reason  ;  and  the  love  of  country  in  him 
must  always  be  modified  in  form  and  expression  by  his 
judgment  in  regard  to  what  his  country  is,  and  what  he 
desires  it  to  be.  Thus,  what  see^n  to  some  to  be  traits 
of  peculiar  excellence,  may  be  regarded  by  others  as 
weaknesses  or  blemishes  ;  and  some  will  be  bent  upon 
the  development  and  application  of  one  theory,  and 
some  will  be  addicted  to  another ;  the  love  of  country 
actuating  both  in  proportion  to  the  purity  and  unselfish- 
ness of  the  individual.  The  object  of  the  present  in- 
quiry, recognizing  the  diverse  operations  of  the  human 
heart  and  mind  in  this  respect,  is  simply  the  ascertainment 
of  facts  in  the  civil  system  correspondent  to  facts  in  the 
ecclesiastical  system.  It  is  no  part  of  its  scope  to  trace 
the  progress  of  what  by  some  may  be  regarded  as  mis- 
conception and  misrepresentation  of  those  facts,  and  by 
others  as  their  legitimate  development.  The  observation, 
however,  may  perhaps  be  permitted,  and  in  candor 
allowed  to  proceed  from  an  honest  love  of  country,  that 


212  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

it  is  greatly  to  be  desired  that  these  facts  should  be 
clearly  understood  and  well  borne  in  mind,  as  a  safe- 
guard against  both  imperializing  and  democratizing 
influenees,  which,  though  at  enmity  with  each  other,  are 
willing  to  make  themselves  friends  together  in  their 
common  misapprehension  and  distrust  of  those  truly 
republican  principles  on  which  alone  the  hope  of  man- 
kind for  the  permanence  of  a  system  providing  for  the 
just  and  beneficent  government  of  society  by  itself  can 
with  safety  repose  ;  and  to  illustrate  and  maintain  which 
the  American  system  was  anointed — if  any  ruler  or  sys- 
tem of  government  ever  could  be  said  to  have  been — 
with  the  special  unction  of  a  Divine  mission. 

But  what  has  been  said  will  suffice  to  evince  the  par- 
allel between  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  systems  under 
consideration  in  respect  of  the  principle  of  federation.* 


*  It  is  presumed  that  the  intelligent  reader  will  understand  that 
the  terms  federal,  democratic,  and  republican  are  here  used  simply 
as  expressive  of  ideas  properly  denoted  by  them,  and  entirely  without 
regard  to  the  significance  attached  to  them  in  the  designation  of 
political  parties.  It  is  a  matter  of  some  curious  interest,  however, 
to  note  the  divergence  of  political  usage  from  the  original  and 
proper  meaning  of  words  in  the  descriptive  titles  of  American  parties. 
The  Federal  party,  so  called,  was  composed  of  those  who  were  the 
earnest  advocates  of  the  union  of  the  States  as  opposed  to  their  con- 
tinued independence,  and  whose  views,  more  or  less  affected  by 
monarchical  traditions,  looked  toward  the  building  up  and  mainte- 
nance of  a  strong  central  government  in  that  union,  for  which,  in 
their  construction  of  the  Constitution,  there  was  sufficient  authority, 
either  expressed  or  implied.  Their  tendency  toward  centralization 
was  resisted  by  the  party  commonly  called  Democratic,  not  at  all  by 
the  advocacy  of  the  political  rights  of  the  mass  of  the  people  as  such 
— which  that  name  might  be  supposed  to  indicate — but  by  insistence 
upon  the  reserved  rights  of  the  constituent  members  of  the  Federal 
Union — that  is  to  say,  the  States  ;  for  which  reason,  presumably, 


THE   CIVIL  ANALOGY.  213 

(if)  The  next  parallel  noted  may  be  called  the  parallel 
of  organization,  which  term  is  here  used  to  denote  the 
establishment  of  the  organic  law  regulating  the  form  and 
manner  of  operation  of  the  Church  representative  in  the 
United  States,  considered  with  reference  not  only  to  its 
individual  members,  but  also  to  the  Church  representative 
existing  in  the  dioceses  respectively. 

The  law  which  defines  the  organic  structure  of  a  body 
and  contains  the  fundamental  principles  on  which  it  must 
act  is  called  its  constitution.  We  understand  the  con- 
stitution of  the  Church  of  Christ  to  have  been  settled  by 
Christ,  and  the  Apostles  acting  under  the  guidance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  This  constitution  is  unwritten  and  tradi- 
tional, although  Holy  Scripture  furnishes  evidence  of  its 
form  in  agreement  with  the  witness  of  tradition.  The 
canons  of  the  early  Church  in  the  age  of  unity  were 
enacted  in  subordination  to  this  common  unwritten  con- 
stitution, and  are  to  some  extent  evidence  of  it ;  and 
upon  this  constitution  the  Church  of  Christ,  in  its  every 
integral  portion,  is  dependent. 

Without  special  agreement,  the  relation  of  the  several 
dioceses  of  the  Church  in  any  country  would  rest  on  the 
basis  of  this  original  unwritten  constitution  ;  and  there  is 
no  reason  to  imagine  that  the  dioceses  of  the  Church  in 
this  country — or  the  Churches  within  the  States  respect- 
ively— held  after  the  independence  of  these  States  a 


the  party  took  care  to  associate  the  word  republican  with  that  of 
democratic  in  their  title,  though  the  former  word,  in  common  par- 
lance, is  ignored.  Thus  the  rights  which  were  truly  and  properly 
federal  came  to  be  urged  against  the  Federal  party,  whose  centripetal 
tendencies,  balancing  Democratic  centrifugalism,  have  been,  not  ex- 
actly inherited,  but  re-presented  by  the  Republican  party  of  later 
years. 


214  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

different  position.  They  were,  as  has  been  so  often 
urged,  absolutely  dependent  upon  that  constitution, 
whatever  might  have  been  their  independence  in  other 
respects.  Nor  has  there  ever  been  anything  to  prevent 
the  representatives  of  any  group  of  dioceses  anywhere 
from  associating  themselves  under  the  formal  sanction 
of  a  written  instrument  regulating  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  their  associated  action,  subject  to  their  obli- 
gation to  the  common  unwritten  constitution  ;  nor  to 
prevent  this  written  instrument  from  being  called  a 
constitution,  it  being  recognized  that  it  determined  the 
organic  law  only  of  the  association.  The  very  natural 
and  sufficient  reason  why  in  the  previous  history  of  the 
Church  there  is  no  such  action  apparent  as  that  taken 
in  this  country,  is  that  there  has  never  been  the  same 
occasion  for  it.  Had  the  Churches  in  these  States  been 
provided  with  Bishops,  the  administration  of  the  affairs 
of  the  Church  under  the  common  constitution  might 
sufficiently  have  been  carried  on  without  other  law  than 
that  of  the  canons  usual  under  ordinary  circumstances. 
But  the  Churches  originally  concerned  in  this  association 
were  at  the  time  actually  without  Bishops  ;  and  entering, 
as  they  did,  without  ecclesiastical  precedent,  upon  the 
organization  of  a  common  administration,  it  was  natural 
and  justifiable  that  they  should  put  the  evidence  of  the 
fundamental  principles  of  their  association  on  record  in 
the  form  of  a  solemn  instrument  in  writing.  • 

The  questions  of  interest  in  the  present  connection  are 
as  to  the  source  from  which  they  drew  the  name  of  that 
instrument,  and  what  the  name  in  their  use  of  it  imports. 

Bishop  White,  in  referring  to  the  draft  of  1785,  speaks 
of  it  as  a  "  General  Constitution."  *  The  drafts  of  1785 

*  "  Memoirs,"  p.  96,  2d  ed. 


TffE    CIVIL  ANALOGY.  21$ 

and  1786  are  headed  respectively  "A  General  Ecclesias- 
tical Constitution  "  and  "  A  General  Constitution  "  "  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America."  *  In  its  completed  form,  in  1789,  the  instru- 
ment is  entitled  in  August  "  A  General  Constitution," 
and  in  October  "  The  Constitution  "  "  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America."  f 
In  two  or  three  places  the  instrument  is  made  to  refer 
to  itself  as  "  this  constitution."  There  is  an  opinion 
among  some  who  have  imbibed  the  notion  of  an  in- 
herent sovereignty  in  General  Convention,  that  this  term 
is  to  be  understood  in  the  same  sense  as  the  word 
"constitutions"  in  ecclesiastical  terminology,  as  it  is 
common  to  speak,  for  example,  of  the  constitutions  of 
Otho  and  Othobon  ;  and  it  is  thence  argued  that  this 
constitution  is,  although  conceded  to  be  of  more  sol- 
emn import  and  more  difficult  of  change  than  ordinary 
canons,  essentially  a  canon  dealing  with  organization, 
not  with  powers  and  functions.  So  far  as  the  argument 
depends  upon  the  opinion,  it  may  safely  be  left  to  take 
care  of  itself.  But  one  reason  given  for  regarding  this 
constitution  as  of  an  essentially  different  character  from 
what  is  in  this  connection  called  the  National  Constitu- 
tion, is  that  the  National  Constitution  actually  constructs 
or  constitutes  the  nation  ;  whereas  the  ecclesiastical  con- 
stitution does  not  construct  or  constitute  the  Church, 
but  is  constituted  or  made  a  constitution  by  the  Church, 
which  exists  of  Divine  right  independently  of  all  human 
constitutions  ;  which  is  a  reason  very  good  to  be  refuted, 
but  really  good  for  nothing  else.  To  speak  of  a  consti- 
tution, considered  as  an  instrument  in  writing,  as  having 

*  Bioren,  pp.  8,  23. 

f  "  Journals,"  Bioren's  ed.,  pp.  61,  75. 


2l6  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

a  creative  force,  is  an  allowable  use  of  language  if  it  be 
understood  that  that  force  proceeds  from  the  power  by 
which  the  instrument  is  set  forth  ;  but  certainly  it  can 
be  no  otherwise  true  that  such  an  instrument  creates  or 
constitutes  than  that  it  is  the  evidence  of  the  creative 
or  constructive  act — as  we  properly  say  that  a  deed  is  a 
conveyance,  meaning  only  that  it  is  the  evidence  of  the 
act  of  a  grantor.  And  if  we  look  a  little  deeper,  and 
regard  a  constitution  not  as  a  written  instrument,  but  as 
the  mode,  or  quality,  or  kind,  or  essential  condition  of 
the  existence  of  any  body  politic  or  natural,  we  cannot 
say  that  the  constitution  creates  the  body,  any  more  than 
that  the  body  creates  the  constitution.  The  constitution 
in  this  view  is  an  intrinsic  property  of  the  body,  and  is 
created  with  it  by  the  same  power  which  creates  it.  In 
either  view,  it  is  not  strictly  true,  but  true  only  by  way 
of  analogy,  that  the  constitution  creates  a  state  or  na- 
tion. It  is.  indeed,  the  law  of  its  organism,  the  organic 
law  in  accordance  with  which  it  operates ;  but  that  law  is 
imposed  upon  it  by  the  power  which  creates  it.  In  itself, 
it  neither  has  nor  can  have  a  creative  force.  And  if  we 
apply  this  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  we 
must  allow  that  this  constitution  did  not  create  the 
Union,  but  is  the  written  evidence  of  that  exercise  of 
power  by  which  it  was  created.  The  same  thing  pre- 
cisely is  true  of  the  constitution  of  the  Ecclesiastical 
Union,  which  did  not  create  that  union,  but  is  the  written 
evidence  of  the  exercise  of  that  power  by  which  it  was 
created.  And  as  to  the  Church  being  incapable  of  being 
constituted  or  constructed,  that  depends  on  the  sense  in 
which  the  word  church  is  used.*  If  it  be  used  in  the 


*  "  There  is  no   word  or  term  used   either   in   any  scientifical, 
moral,  or  popular  discourse,  which  hath  so  many,  so  much  different 


THE   CIVIL   ANALOGY.  S17 

sense  of  a  society  already  Divinely  constituted  or  con- 
structed, of  course  it  is  incapable  of  being  constituted 
because  it  is  constituted.  But  if  it  be  used  in  the  sense 
of  a  body  representatively  composed,  by  the  union  of 
parts  or  portions  having  a  lawful  independent  existence 
according  to  its  original  Divine  constitution,  then  the 
Church  in  some  certain  form  of  its  representative  being 
is  capable  of  being  constituted,  just  as  much  as  the  State 
in  some  certain  form  is  capable  of  being  constituted. 
For  it  is  as  true  of  the  State  as  it  is  of  the  Church, 
abstractly  considered,  that  it  exists  of  Divine  right  inde- 
pendently of  all  human  constitutions.  And  though  it  be 
true  that  the  form  in  which  the  State  exists  is  not  deter- 
mined by  the  Divine  Will,  and  that  the  form  in  which  the 
Church  exists  is  determined  by  the  Divine  Will,  yet  it 
does  not  follow  that,  in  regard  to  such  matters  as  formal 
association  and  representation  of  its  constitutionally  in- 
dependent parts,  the  Church  is  less  free  than  the  State  is  ; 
nor  that  it  is  less  capable  of  being  representatively  con- 
stituted in  some  particular  form  and  combination,  or  that 
being  so  constituted,  it  would  cease  to  be  the  Church 
acting  under  certain  conditions. 

But,  to  descend  from  this  somewhat  rarefied  meta- 
physical air  to  the  atmosphere  of  more  practical  con- 
siderations, it  is  to  be  noted  as  a  matter  of  fact,  first, 
that  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  this  written  constitu- 
tion of  the  Ecclesiastical  Union  the  word  "  constitution  " 
had  a  common  and  distinctly  recognized  political  signifi- 
cation both  in  England  and  in  this  country  ;  and  that 
during  the  process  of  the  formation  of  this  Union — from 

significations  or  importances,  as  the  word  church  hath,  whether  we 
take  it  in  the  Greek,  Latin,  or  English"  (Jackson,  Works,  vol.  xii., 
p.  7,  ed.  1844). 


2l  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

1784  to  1789 — the  adoption  of  a  constitution  of  the 
Union  of  the  States  was  the  pervading  and  prominent 
subject  of  discussion,  and  actually  took  place.  There 
does  not  seem,  therefore,  any  necessity  for  sending  the 
founders  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Union  back  to  the  days  of 
Otho  and  Othobon  to  look  for  a  name  for  the  instrument 
embodying  the  principles  on  which  the  Union  was  to  act, 
when  there  was  a  name  directly  before  them  describing 
an  instrument  drawn  to  meet  the  case  of  the  political 
union  in  the  same  States  in  which  it  was  sought  to  unite 
the  Church. 

A  second  fact  to  be  noted  in  this  parallel  is  thaHn  the 
process  of  the  completion  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Constitu- 
tion there  appear  certain  changes  in  the  plan  of  its 
construction  correspondent  to  changes  in  constitutional 
provisions  of  the  civil  system. 

The  Civil  Constitution  was  set  forth  by  the  convention 
which  framed  it  in  1787,  and  the  Ecclesiastical  Constitu- 
tion in  1789.  Both  instruments,  indeed,  have  been  sub- 
sequently amended  ;  but  they  were  respectively  set  forth 
at  these  several  dates.  There  are  various  points  of  cor- 
respondence which  will  be  noted  hereafter,  but  what  is 
noted  at  present  is  the  correspondence  between  changes 
introduced  into  the  proposed  ecclesiastical  plan,  and 
changes  previously  introduced  into  the  civil  system. 

In  the  draft  Ecclesiastical  Constitution  of  1786,  Article 
II.  did  not  provide  for  a  vote  by  orders  ;  but,  while  per- 
mitting a  clerical  and  lay  representation,  directed  that, 
in  all  questions,  the  Church  in  each  State  should  have 
one  vote,  and  that  a  majority  of  suffrages  should  be  con- 
clusive. (Art.  II.)  This  draft  contemplated  the  General 
Convention  only  as  one  House,  providing  that  in  every 
State  where  there  should  be  a  Bishop  who  should  have 


THE   CIVIL  ANALOGY.  210 

acceded  to  the  Constitution,  such  Bishop  should  be  ex 
officio  a  member  of  that  house.  (Art.  V.)  * 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  had  not  then 
been  adopted.  But  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  which 
had  been  in  existence  since  1777,  provided  for  the  sitting 
of  Congress  as  one  House,  and  gave  to  each  State  one 
vote  in  that  legislative  body. 

In  1789  (two  years  after  the  adoption  of  the  United 
States  Constitution)  appears  in  the  Ecclesiastical  Con- 
stitution the  provision  for  the  two  Houses  of  General 
Convention,  and  the  giving  of  one  vote  to  each  order 
(clerical  and  lay)  of  the  Church  in  a  State,  instead  of 
one  vote  to  the  Church  in  each  State,  thus  securing 
(though  by  a  different  method,  more  suitable  to  the  plan 
of  the  Church)  that  triple  consent  to  legislative  action 
which  the  United  States  Constitution  provided  for  in  the 
concurrence  of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress  with  the 
executive,  and  which,  though  an  idea  of  the  English 
Constitution,  had  found  no  expression  in  the  Articles  of 
Confederation. 

The  correspondence  of  these  changes  in  the  ecclesi- 
astical system  with  changes  which  had  been  previously 
accomplished  in  the  civil  system,  indicates  with  sufficient 
plainness  the  model  upon  which  the  organic  law  of  the 
ecclesiastical  association  was  based  ;  and  suggests  fur- 
ther the  thought  that  the  ecclesiastical  system,  after  it 
had  begun  to  be  organized,  passed  like  the  civil  system 
through  the  stage  of  confederacy  before  it  finally  entered 
upon  the  stage  of  union. 

A  third  fact  it  is  proper  to  note  in  connection  with  the 
parallel  in  regard  to  the  organic  law  of  the  civil  and 

*  Bioren,  pp.  24,  25. 


226  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

ecclesiastical  unions,  and  that  is,  that  there  is  a  remark- 
able analogy  between  the  mode  by  which  that  law  in 
both  cases  was  made  capable  of  alteration.  In  the  civil 
system  it  is  provided  that  alterations  in  the  Constitution 
are  to  be  effected  by  the  joint  action  of  Congress  and 
three-fourths  of  the  States.  (U.  S.  Const.,  Art.  V.) 
In  the  ecclesiastical  system  such  alterations  are  to  be 
effected  in  General  Convention,  by  the  Church  in  a 
majority  of  the  States  which  may  have  adopted  the  same  ; 
action  taken  in  one  General  Convention  to  be  notified  to 
the  several  State  Conventions,  and  ratified  and  agreed 
to  in  the  ensuing  General  Convention.*  In  other  words, 
the  two  systems  contemplate  (though  with  a  difference 
in  the  process)  substantially  the  same  thing,  viz.:  the 
concurrent  consent,  to  such  alterations,  of  two  classes  of 
actors  ;  the  one  being  the  legislative  body,  the  other  be- 
ing a  fixed  proportion  of  the  constituent  elements  of  the 
Union  represented  in  that  body. 

With  regard  to  the  question  of  powers  conferred,  as  to 
which  the  analogy  has  been  thought  to  be  weak,  it  is 
to  be  observed  that  there  is  no  reason  to  expect  the  same 
strictness  and  detail  of  specification  in  the  constitution 
of  an  Ecclesiastical  Union  as  would  be  necessary  in  the 
constitution  of  a  Civil  Union.  Under  the  circumstances 
attending  the  constitutional  establishment  of  the  General 
Convention,  much,  no  doubt,  would  be  taken  for  granted. 
Some  defects  of  arrangement  might  be  overlooked,  pro- 
vided that  the  substantial  purpose  of  union  was  attained. 
The  feeling  that  those  who  were  combining  their  ecclesi- 
astical interests  were  all  basing  their  lives  upon  professed 
principles  of  Christian  love  which  would  be  a  safeguard 


*  Bioren,  p.  77  (Art.  IX.,  of  1789). 


THE    CIVIL  ANALOGY.  221 

against  jealousies,  animosities,  and  mutual  exactions, 
might  justly  have  weight.  And  the  further  feeling  that, 
whatever  difficulties  might  be  in  the  way  of  formal  union, 
whatever  construction  might  be  put  upon  formal  pro- 
visions, the  members  of  the  Church  in  the  several  States 
were  united  already  in  the  one  Church  of  Christ's  foun- 
dation, might  account  for  some  want  of  system.  But 
beyond  all  cavil,  the  constitution  established  by  the  Dio- 
ceses is  the  sufficient  evidence  (i)  of  the  creation  of  the 
General  Convention,  and  of  the  gift  to  it  of  a  Supreme 
Authority,  and  (2)  of  limitations  both  as  to  the  sphere 
in  which  it  is  to  operate,  and  as  to  the  extent  of  its  oper- 
ation in  that  sphere. 

Those  who  constituted  the  General  Convention  were 
competent  to  define  and  specify  its  powers  ;  or  to  con- 
stitute it  for  a  certain  class  of  powers,  and  leave  it  un- 
limited in  the  exercise  of  them  ;  or  to  constitute  it  for  a 
certain  class  of  powers,  particularly  specifying  some,  and 
to  impose  upon  it  certain  limitations  in  the  exercise  of 
its  powers.  The  last  of  these  three  courses  is  what 
appears  to  have  been  chosen.  The  constitution  contem- 
plates the  General  Convention  as  possessed  of  legislative 
power.  The  acts  which  are  adopted  are  to  have  the 
operation  of  law.  But  there  are  limitations  imposed  by 
the  constitution  upon  the  exercise  of  this  power.  The 
consideration  of  Article  II.,  as  originally  adopted  in  1789, 
is  sufficient  to  establish  this  principle.  The  article  con- 
tains the  most  general  grant  of  power  which  the  repre- 
sentative body  has  received.  The  power,  however,  is 
not  conveyed  by  the  formal  statement  that  the  General 
Convention  is  authorized  to  do  certain  things,  or  all 
things  of  a  certain  kind,  but  it  is,  with  equal  effect, 
conferred  in  a  different  way  ;  that  is,  by  the  abandon- 


222  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

ment  on  the  part  of  the  Dioceses  of  any  right  of  objec- 
tion to  acts  of  the  General  Convention  consummated  in 
the  specified  way.  A  fuller  and  more  exclusive  grant  of 
power  it  would  be  difficult  to  make  ;  and  the  only  limita- 
tion upon  it,  so  far  as  this  article  is  concerned,  is  that 
the  acts  shall  be  adopted  in  the  method  prescribed. 

There  are,  of  course,  other  limitations,  as  well  as 
powers  specifically  expressed ;  but  having  regard  to  the 
original  act  of  adoption,  as  having  the  most  direct  bear- 
ing on  the  present  question,  the  reference  to  this  article 
and  to  Article  III.  is  sufficient  to  show  that  in  the  forma- 
tion of  the  ecclesiastical  system,  as  well  as  of  the  civil 
system,  powers  of  legislation  were  granted  to  a  repre- 
sentative body,  which  establishes  the  substance  of  the 
analogy.  If  the  Churches  in  the  States  were  willing  to 
trust  more  to  their  representative  body,  than  the  States 
had  trusted  to  theirs,  that  surely  is  not  out  of  harmony 
with  the  different  character  of  the  two  powers  :  the  sub- 
stance of  the  analogy,  nevertheless,  holds  here  as  else- 
where.* 


*  Dr.  Vinton  ("  Manual  Commentary,"  pp.  79,  80)  lays  great  stress 
upon  the  fact  that  ten  canons  were  adopted  by  General  Convention 
in  August,  1789,  as  an  evidence  that  that  body  possessed  legislative 
authority  over  the  whole  Church  throughout  the  country,  independ- 
ently of  any  derivation  from  the  Church  in  the  States  through  the 
constitution.  He  does  not  adduce  the  action  as  evidence  merely  of 
the  supremacy  of  the  legislative  authority  of  General  Convention,  but 
he  further  infers  and  insists  that  these  canons  were  imposed  by  the 
members  of  the  General  Convention  by  the  "plenipotentiary  and 
original  powers  of  legislation  by  which  they  were  invested  by  the 
members  of  the  Church";  and  that  "General  Convention  had  the 
authority  in  the  premises  as  being  the  whole  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States  in  Council  assembled." 

If  this  were  so,  their  action  was  binding  upon  the  Church  in  Con- 


THE   CIVIL   ANALOGY.  223 

(c]  The  third  parallel  noted  is  that  of  representation,  in 
considering  which  it  is  chiefly  desired  to  point  out  the 

necticut.  But  this  is  manifestly  untrue  ;  so,  therefore,  is  the  conclu- 
sion. But  the  argument  and  the  evidence  are  alike  inconclusive. 
For,  (i)  the  canons  were  passed  by  the  same  body  which  had  been 
already  authorized  by  the  Church  in  the  States  to  ratify  the  consti- 
tution. It  was  for  this  reason  that  it  was  unnecessary  to  send  the 
constitution  back  to  the  Church  in  the  States  for  ratification,  because 
the  deputies  were  already,  in  advance,  authorized  to  ratify  ;  and  the 
constituent  was  under  obligation  to  stand  by  the  acts  performed  under 
such  authority.  (See  resolution  of  1786 — Bioren,  p.  26 — and  state- 
ment by  Deputies  in  1789 — Ib.  48.)  This  is  the  precise  distinction 
between  the  Convention  of  1789  and  previous  conventions — that  in 
1789  the  deputies  were  authorized  to  bind  their  constituents,  whereas 
what  was  done  before  rested  on  recommendation.  Nor  does  the  fact 
that  in  some  States  a  further  ratification  took  place  by  subsequent 
action,  which  might  have  been  for  special  reasons  in  those  cases 
desirable,  prevent  the  conclusion  necessarily  contained  in  the  evi- 
dence of  General  Convention  itself.  The  power  to  adopt  a  general 
constitution  respecting  both  doctrine  and  discipline  was  what  the 
deputies  in  General  Convention  of  1789  had  received.  They  cer- 
tainly might  pass  canons,  by  the  power  which  they  had  to  adopt  a 
constitution,  as  the  greater  power  includes  the  less  ;  but  whenever 
under  that  power  canons  were  adopted,  they  would  bear  relation  to 
the  constitution. 

(2)  In  fact,  however,  the  business  of  the  constitution  was  first 
entered  upon,  and  that  these  canons  were  passed  before  the  adoption 
of  the  constitution  as  a  whole,  was  simply  a  matter  of  convenience, 
because  they  were  reported  by  committee  as  ready  for  adoption 
before  the  piocess  of  amendment  to  the  constitution  was  completed 
— though,  even  so,  actually  on  the  same  day  both  were  adopted  in 
their  complete  state  ;  and  those  articles  which  related  to  the  law- 
making  power  were  adopted  before  the  canons. 

The  constitution  was  presented  on  the  1st  day  of  August,  twice 
read  over,  and  seven  of  its  nine  articles  were  adopted,  the  remaining 
two  being  "  postponed  for  the  future  consideration  of  this  Conven- 
tion." (Bioren,  p.  52.)  AmoTig  the  articles  so  adopted  were  those 
that  stood  in  the  designated  numbering — as  they  have  stood  ever  since 


224  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

substantial  correspondence  between  the  provisions  made 
in  the  two  systems  to  attain  the  expression  of  the  will  of 

— as  Articles  II.  and  III.  ;  those,  namely,  which  affect  the  question 
of  legislative  power  ;  and  the  resolution  of  adoption  contains  these 
(in  this  connection)  very  remarkable  words  in  relation  to  the  seven 
articles  adopted  :  "THAT  THEY  BE  A  RULE  OF  CONDUCT  FOR  THIS 
CONVENTION."  The  two  articles  laid  over  for  further  consideration 
were  the  eighth  and  ninth,  having  reference  to  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  and  the  mode  of  altering  the  constitution,  neither  of  which 
had  any  bearing  upon  the  question  of  the  power  of  the  Convention 
to  enact  canons  under  the  constitution.  (Bioren,  p.  52,  pp.  61,  62.) 

The  Convention  went  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  canons  after 
this  date,  and,  as  thus  appears,  under  the  authority  of  the  constitu- 
tion as  to  this  point  adopted,  on  the  5th  and  6th  days  of  August ; 
and  the  report  of  this  committee,  laid  on  the  table  August  6th,  was 
acted  on,  and  the  proposed  canons  adopted  August  7th.  (Bioren, 

PP-  53,  55,  57-) 

They  are  headed  ' '  Canons  .  .  .  agreed  on  and  ratified  in  the 
General  Convention  .  .  .  held  .  .  .  from  the  28th  day  of 
July  to  the  8th  day  of  August,  1789,  inclusive."  (Ib.  58.)  Immedi- 
ately after,  on  the  same  7th  day  of  August,  the  Convention  consid- 
ered the  two  articles  of  the  constitution  which  had  been  postponed, 
agreed  to  them  as  amended,  and  ordered  the  whole  constitution 
engrossed  for  signing.  {Ib.  60.)  And  on  the  8th  day  of  August  the 
constitution  was  accordingly  read  and  signed.  (Ib.  61-64.) 

(3)  After  the  amendment  and  republication  of  the  constitution,- 
October  2,  1789  (Bioren,  pp.  75-78),  these  canons  were  reconsidered, 
and  passed  with  sundry  others.  (Bishop  White's  "  Memoirs,"  p.  30, 
p.  155.)  And  on  the  i6th  day  of  October,  having  been  collected  into 
one  body,  and  ratified  by  both  Houses,  they  were  directed  to  be 
entered  in  the  Book  of  Records  and  printed  with  the  Journal. 
(Bioren,  p.  84.) 

So  that,  in  fact,  the  obligation  of  these  ten  canons — which  appear 
to  have  been  a  sort  of  prohibitory  decalogue  to  Dr.  Vinton's  accept- 
ance of  the  proper  relation  of  the  legislative  power  of  the  Convention 
to  the  constitution — dates,  so  far  as  concerns  certain  churches  not 
represented  in  the  session  of  August,  1789,  from  the  i6th  day  of 
October,  or  fourteen  days  after  the  adoption  of  the  constitution  by 


THE    CIVIL  ANALOGY.  225 

their  respective  constituent  parts,  though  this  considera- 
tion incidentally  includes  what  should  be  properly  re- 
garded as  a  fourth  parallel,  viz.  :  (d]  that  of  legislation. 

In  comparing  the  two  systems  in  this  aspect  of  them, 
the  student  will  observe  that  the  General  Convention 
corresponds  to  the  Congress  both  in  respect  to  its  scheme 
of  representation  and  to  its  requirement  of  the  consent 
necessary  for  legislation,  wherein  it  is  noticeable  that  the 
same  idea,  derived  from  the  British  Constitution  into 
the  States  and  thence  extended  to  the  United  States 
Government,  of  a  triple  consent  necessary  to  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  law,  is  traceable  in  the  General  Convention, 
though  not  exactly  in  the  same  way. 

In  order  to  legislation  in  Congress  there  is  necessary 


them.  And,  so  far  as  concerns  the  Churches  which  were  represented 
in  the  session  of  August,  1789,  the  obligation  dates  from  the  7th  day 
of  August,  or  six  days  after  the  Convention,  composed  of  "  deputies 
from  the  several  States,"  authorized  "to  confirm  and  ratify  a  general 
constitution,  respecting  both  the  doctrine  and  discipline  of  the,"  etc., 
had  resolved  that  the  articles  affecting  the  legislative  powers  of  the 
Convention  be  adopted,  and  "  that  they  be  a  rule  of  conduct  for  this 
Convention." 

The  case  of  these  ten  canons,  then,  which  Dr.  Vinton,  following 
Judge  Hoffman  ("  Law  of  the  Church,"  p.  105),  though  with  much 
less  caution  than  is  shown  by  that  learned  jurist,  alleges  to  prove  the 
legislative  power  of  the  General  Convention  independently  of  the 
constitution,  and  by  virtue  of  the  authority  of  that  body  as  being 
the  whole  Church  in  the  United  States  in  Council  assembled,  is  so 
far  from  furnishing  evidence  in  support  of  this  claim  that  it  most 
distinctly  establishes  the  contrary  ;  viz.  :  that  the  deputies  in  the 
Convention,  acting  for  the  Church  in  those  States  which  were  repre- 
sented in  it,  exercised  the  legislative  power  under  and  by  virtue  of 
the  constitution  which  their  commission  authorized  them  to  adopt  ; 
and  which,  when  adopted,  became  their  rule  of  action — being,  what 
a  constitution  properly  is,  a  law  to  the  law-givers. 
15 


226  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

the  consent  of  a  Lower  and  an  Upper  House  and  also  of 
the  President,  who  has  the  power  of  a  negative,  by  which 
he  may,  under  certain  limitations,  prevent  a  joint  act  of 
the  two  Houses  from  becoming  a  law.  Now,  we  find  in 
the  ecclesiastical  system  an  Upper  and  a  Lower  House — 
the  House  of  Bishops  and  the  House  of  Deputies — the 
Lower  House  being  composed  of  a  two-fold  representa- 
tion of  the  Church  in  the  dioceses  by  clerical  and  by  lay 
deputies.  And  in  order  to  the  adoption  of  any  law  of 
this  Convention,  there  is  necessary  the  triple  consent  of 
the  laity,  the  clergy,  and  the  Bishops. 

It  is  noticeable  in  this  connection  that  the  intent  of  the 
Ecclesiastical  Constitution,  as  it  was  before  the  modifica- 
tions with  which  it  was  finally  adopted,  was  that  the 
House  of  Bishops  were  to  have  no  legislative  powers, 
but  were  to  act  only  as  a  House  of  Revision  with  a  lim- 
ited power  of  negative,*  which  indicates  that  the  Bishops 
were  then  contemplated  as  a  sort  of  combined  Executive. 
And  this  conception  of  the  Episcopate  as  an  Executive 
appears  to  have  been  not  entirely  obliterated  even  after 
the  position  of  the  Episcopal  House  had  been  changed 
in  1789  to  that  of  a  coordinate  branch  of  the  Legis- 
lature, with  the  same  right  to  originate  and  propose  acts 
as  was  recognized  in  the  other  House  ;  for  even  then  the 
power  of  the  Bishops,  as  expressed  in  the  constitution,  is 
the  power  of  a  negative  on  the  acts  of  the  other  House, 
to  which  is  given  the  power  to  overrule  that  negative. 
It  was  not  until  some  years  later  that  the  two  Houses 
were  placed  in  the  constitution  on  a  substantially  equal 
footing  ;  and  even  then  a  trace  of  the  former  conception 
remained  in  the  condition  imposed  upon  the  Bishops, 


'Journals  Gen.  Conv.,"  vol.  i.,  pp.  61,  62  (Bioren). 


THE    CIVIL   ANALOGY.  227 

that  their  disapprobation  or  non-concurrence  should  be 
handed  down  within  three  days,  with  their  reasons  in 
writing,  a  trace  which  is  still  waiting  to  be  removed. 
But  whether  viewed  as  a  branch  of  the  Legislature  or  as 
representing  the  Executive,  the  concurrence  of  their 
consent  with  that  of  the  clergy  and  laity  in  the  Lower 
House  constitutes  the  triple  cord  of  legislative  obligation 
which  is  characteristic  of  the  civil  system,  both  English 
and  American,  with  which  the  founders  of  the  ecclesias- 
tical system  were  familiar. 

That  as  to  this  matter  of  an  Executive  there  should 
be  some  apparent  discrepancy  in  the  working  out  of  the 
general  correspondence  of  the  ecclesiastical  with  the 
civil  system,  is  not  strange.  The  position  of  the  single 
Bishop  in  his  diocese  would  naturally  take  care  of  itself; 
at  any  rate,  there  was  no  occasion  for  the  promoters  of 
the  Ecclesiastical  Union  to  embarrass  themselves  with 
questions  about  that.  But  in  providing  for  the  union, 
there  were  more  questions  than  one  which  might  here 
arise.  The  course  actually  taken  was  that  when  the 
Convention  was  contemplated  as  one  House,  provision 
was  made  that  a  Bishop  should  preside  (Art.  V.,  1786)  ; 
and  when  the  Convention  came  to  be  contemplated  as 
two  Houses,  the  framers  contented  themselves  with  lodg- 
ing the  negative  in  the  Bishops  collectively,  leaving  the 
question  of  presidency  untouched. 

The  need,  however,  of  this  distinction  for  other  pur- 
poses than  that  of  the  negative  became  soon  apparent  ; 
and  although  no  mention  of  a  Presiding  Bishop  is  made 
in  the  original  constitution,  yet  in  amended  articles  and 
subsequent  canons  that  office  is  recognized  ;  though  the 
origin  of  it  belongs  not  to  any  law  of  the  Convention, 
but  to  the  action  of  the  Bishops  in  their  own  House  :  at 


228  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

the  very  first  session  of  which,  its  members,  mindful  of  the 
caution  of  the  Apostolic  Canon  that  the  Bishops  of  every 
nation  should  know  him  who  is  chief  among  them,  desig- 
nated the  Bishop  of  oldest  consecration  as  the  president.* 

There  is  another  matter  which  must  be  taken  into 
account  as  having  a  very  direct  and  serious  bearing,  in 
point  of  principle,  upon  the  parallels  of  representation 
and  legislation. 

It  is  often  asserted  without  qualification — by  some 
vaunted  as  a  chief  glory,  by  others  decried  as  an  evil 
disease  of  the  body  politic — that  the  American  civil 
system,  involving  a  popular  government,  involves  also 
the  supremacy  of  the  will  of  the  majority.  Whether  this 
be  a  glory  or  a  disease  — and  that  depends  upon  the  un- 
derstanding and  use  of  it — the  fact  is  certain.  The  rule 
is  the  rule  of  the  majority.  But  what  majority  ? 


*  At  the  first  session  of  the  House  of  Bishops  in  October,  1789, 
there  being  then  in  the  country  Bishop  Seabury,  of  Connecticut, 
consecrated  in  1784,  and  Bishops  White,  of  Pennsylvania,  and  Pro- 
vost, of  New  York,  consecrated  in  1787,  the  former  two  alone  being 
present  ;  by  the  voluntary  and  very  graceful  concession  of  Bishop 
White  the  office  was  devolved  upon  Bishop  Seabury  on  the  principle 
of  seniority  of  consecration.  (White's  "  Memoirs,"  p.  148.)  At  the 
next  session,  Bishop  Provost  and  Bishop  Madison  being  also  present,  it 
was  resolved  that  the  presidency  go  by  rotation,  beginning  from  the 
north,  whereby  Bishop  Provost  presided.  At  the  next  session  Bishop 
White  presided  in  his  turn.  At  the  next  session  Bishop  White  pre- 
sided in  place  of  Bishop  Madison,  who  was  not  present.  Bishop 
Seabury  having  deceased,  the  rule  was  restored  to  that  of  seniority, 
by  virtue  of  which  Bishop  White  presided  up  to  the  time  of  his 
death,  in  1836. — Cf.  Vinton,  "  Man.  Com.,"  pp.  84-87.  Cf.  also 
Bishop  White's  very  interesting  account  of  the  transfer  of  the  presi- 
dency from  Bishop  Seabury  ("  Memoirs,"  pp.  162,  163),  and  the 
extract  from  Bishop  Seabury's  journal  printed  in  Beardsley's  life  of 
him,  pp.  424,  425. 


THE   CIVIL   ANALOGY.  229 

This  is  a  question  as  to  which  neither  the  friends  nor 
the  enemies  of  the  system  are  apt  to  give  themselves 
much  concern.  Yet  it  is  not  only  the  important  question 
in  the  controversy  between  them  ;  it  is  also  the  determin- 
ing question  as  to  the  true  character  of  the  system. 

The  instinct  of  the  churchman  is  apt  to  be  conserva- 
tive, and  the  conservative  instinct  shrinks  from  the  idea 
of  the  majority  rule.  But  the  most  conservative  reader 
of  the  stately  page  of  Bishop  Beveridge  finds  nothing  to 
shock  him  in  the  affirmation,  that  when  we  seek  for  the 
judgment  of  the  Universal  Church  we  find  it,  not  in  the 
expression  of  each  individual  member  of  the  Church,  but 
in  the  testimony  of  the  major  part  of  those  qualified  to 
bear  witness  in  regard  to  it.  Nor  can  reason  or  common 
sense  question  the  wisdom  of  the  maxim  of  the  civil  law 
that  what  the  greater  part  of  the  court  determines  is  to 
be  taken  as  the  determination  of  the  court.  If  we 
imagine  a  council  of  Bishops  coming  to  the  decision  of  a 
question  before  them,  the  fact  that  the  voices  of  the 
greater  number  prevail  suggests  nothing  unjust.  And  so 
with  regard  to  the  action  of  any  body  or  community, 
there  is  necessarily  nothing  intrinsically  wrong  or  unjust 
in  the  determination  of  it  by  the  majority  of  the  members 
of  that  body  or  community.  Any  question  which  may 
rightly  be  subjected  to  the  decision  of  any  community 
may  rightly  be  determined  by  the  major  part  of  that 
community. 

But  it  is  manifest  also  that  there  may  be  many  consid- 
erations which  would  lead  in  practice  to  the  qualification 
and  limitation  of  this  right.  The  inherent  selfishness  of 
men  obscures  their  natural  sense  of  justice,  while  their 
weakness  predisposes  the  multitude  to  flock  together  in 
masses,  under  the  influence  of  those  who  know  how  to 


230  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

touch  the  springs  of  their  selfishness  ;  and  hence  the 
rights  and  interests  of  the  minority,  which  is  apt,  as  a 
rule,  to  include  the  better  and  wiser  part  of  every  com- 
munity, would  be  in  great  danger  of  being  sacrificed,  or 
at  least  impaired,  if  no  provision  were  made  for  their 
protection.  It  is  obvious,  too,  that  this  danger  would  be 
enhanced  by  the  magnitude  of  the  community  ;  and  that 
in  the  smaller  collections  or  groups  of  men  there  would 
be  always  both  a  better  knowledge  of  the  facts  which 
concerned  their  well-being,  and  a  better  opportunity  for 
the  counsels  of  reason  and  wisdom  to  have  their  due 
weight  and  influence.  And  there  is  the  further  fact  to 
be  remembered,  that  in  order  to  the  attainment  of  the 
ends  of  justice,  the  interests  of  men  are  to  be  regarded 
as  well  as  their  persons  ;  and  it  is  possible  that  the  real 
welfare  of  a  community  may  depend  upon  the  conser- 
vation of  certain  interests  which  are  not  personally  in 
charge  of  every  member  of  the  community,  in  equal 
shares,  and  in  the  disposition  of  which,  therefore,  a  merely 
numerical  majority  of  all  the  members  of  the  community 
could  not  safely  or  wisely  be  trusted. 

We  come  thus  to  the  thought  that  in  a  community 
widely  extended  and  of  diversified  interests  it  is  expedi- 
ent, as  a  matter  of  wisdom  and  just  government,  that  its 
affairs  should  be  ordered  by  some  other  majority  than 
that  which  is  merely  numerical,  and  which  should  be 
able  to  represent  and  express  the  concurrent  consent  of 
certain  constituent  parts  or  interests  in  that  community. 
It  would  thus  be  possible  that  while  the  numerical  ma- 
jority of  those  who  were  concerned  in  any  particular 
interest  would  direct  the  action  and  expression  of  those 
so  concerned,  yet  the  measure  of  the  action  and  expres- 
sion of  the  whole  community  would  be,  not  the  voice  of 


THE    CIVIL  ANALOGY.  231 

the  numerical  majority  of  all  the  individuals  in  that 
community,  but  the  voice  of  the  majority  of  the  several 
constituencies  or  interests  included  in  it ;  whereby  a  just 
power  and  influence  would  be  given  to  the  numerical 
majority  in  the  place  and  sphere  which  belonged  to  it, 
while  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  minority  would 
nevertheless  be,  as  far  as  possible,  protected  from  the 
tyranny  and  injustice  of  mere  irresponsible  and  unthink- 
ing numbers. 

Perhaps  the  clearest  illustration  of  the  operation  of  a 
concurrent  as  distinguished  from  a  merely  numerical 
majority  may  be  found  in  a  simple  confederacy.  In 
the  constituent  parts  of  such  a  confederacy,  representa- 
tives may  be  elected  by  numerical  majorities  in  these 
parts  respectively ;  yet  the  voice  of  the  representative 
body  is  the  voice  of  the  majority  of  those  constituent 
parts,  and  so  the  voice  of  the  whole.  But  in  a  confed- 
eracy which  united  a  few  populous  constituencies  with  a 
larger  number  of  less  populous  constituencies,  it  is  obvi- 
ous that  the  voice  of  the  whole  jointly  expressed  in  the 
representative  body  might  be  different  from  the  will  of 
the  majority  of  individuals  throughout  all  the  constituent 
parts,  who  would,  nevertheless,  be  bound  by  the  concur- 
rence of  the  constituencies.  And  it  is  easy  to  see  that 
the  same  principle  might  be  applied  in  a  more  perfect 
union,  wherein,  however,  as  it  would  be  necessary  to 
entrust  the  common  government  with  larger  and  more 
direct  powers,  it  would  be  also  probable  that  the  pro- 
visions for  the  application  of  the  principle  would  be 
more  varied  and  complex,  and  would  require  a  nicer 
adjustment  and  relation  of  the  numerical  and  concurrent 
majorities  to  each  other. 

It  being  understood,  then,  that  the  Republic  of  the 


232  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

United  States,  involving  a  popular  government,  involves 
also  the  rule  of  the  majority,  it  is  to  be  said,  in  answer 
to  the  question  as  to  the  character  of  that  majority, 
that  it  is  not  simply  and  absolutely  the  numerical  ma- 
jority of  the  citizens  of  that  Republic,  but  that  such 
numerical  majority  is  qualified  and  limited  by  the  power 
of  a  concurrent  majority  of  certain  interests  or  constitu- 
encies which  are  represented  in  its  government ;  and 
that  while  there  is  room  for  the  exercise  of  the  just 
power  and  influence  of  the  numerical  majority  in  its 
proper  place  and  sphere,  yet  that  such  provident  care  is 
had  for  the  welfare  of  the  numerical  minority,  as  that 
the  will  of  the  numerical  majority  throughout  the  coun- 
try may  be  held  in  check  by  the  will  of  the  concurrent 
majority  of  its  various  constituencies,  not  necessarily 
identical  with  it.  It  is  this  characteristic  which  distin- 
guishes the  Republic  of  the  United  States  as  much  from 
a  simply  democratic  or  merely  popular  government  as  it 
is  by  this  and  other  characteristics  distinguished  from  a 
monarchy  or  an  empire. 

In  evidence  and  illustration  of  this  characteristic 
might  be  adduced  the  provision  of  the  United  States 
Constitution  in  regard  to  the  election  of  the  President, 
which  displays  at  least  a  very  careful  endeavor  to  bal- 
ance the  claims  of  numerical  and  concurrent  majorities, 
and  which,  as  it  withholds  from  the  people,  as  a  body, 
the  right  of  election  by  a  numerical  majority,  so  also 
withholds  from  the  States,  in  the  first  instance,  the  right 
of  election  by  a  majority  of  those  constituencies,  but 
provides  for  the  choice  by  the  people  of  each  State  of 
certain  electors,  by  the  vote  of  a  numerical  majority 
of  the  whole  number  of  which  electors  the  President 
is  chosen  ;  or,  failing  such  choice — that  is,  if  no  one 


THE    CIVIL  ANALOGY.  233 

receives  a  majority  of  such  electoral  votes — the  three 
names  which  have  received  the  largest  number  of  elec- 
toral votes  are  submitted  to  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, by  which  the  election  of  one  of  these  three  is  made  ; 
the  vote  in  this  case  being  taken  by  States,  two-thirds  of 
the  States  being  required  to  be  represented,  each  State 
having  one  vote,  and  a  majority  of  all  the  States  being 
necessary  to  a  choice.* 

It  will  better  accord,  however,  with  the  present  pur- 
pose to  note  that  in  the  legislative  body  the  representa- 
tion consists  not  merely  of  two  Houses,  the  concurrence 
of  which  is  necessary  in  order  to  legislation,  but  that  in 
the  composition  of  these  two  Houses  two  different  kinds 
of  representation  are  included,  the  senators  representing 
the  States  as  such,  and  the  members  of  the  other  House, 
though  chosen  for  and  within  the  States  respectively,  yet 
chosen  with  reference  to  the  population  of  the  State  from 
which  they  come,  and  as  representative  of  people  within 
that  State,  so  that — in  practice  at  least — they  represent 
particular  popular  constituencies  within  the  State,  instead 
of  being  chosen,  as  the  senators  are,  by  the  legislative 
body  representing  the  State  as  a  whole,  f  A  vote  taken 


•United  States  Const.,  Art.  II.,  Sec.  i,  and  Art.  XII.  of  the 
Amendments. 

f  United  States  Constitution,  Art.  I.,  Sees,  i,  2,  3. 

"  The  Senate  of  the  United  States  is  composed  of  two  senators 
from  each  State  chosen  by  the  legislature  thereof,  for  six  years,  and 
each  senator  has  one  vote.  . 

"  In  this  part  of  the  Constitution  we  readily  perceive  the  feature 
of  the  old  confederation.  Each  State  has  its  equal  voice  and  equal 
weight  in  the  Senate,  without  any  regard  to  disparity  of  population, 
wealth,  or  dimensions.  This  arrangement  must  have  been  the  result 
of  that  spirit  of  amity  and  mutual  concession,  which  was  rendered 
indispensable  by  the  peculiarity  of  our  political  condition.  It  is 


234  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

upon  a  question  might  express,  in  the  case  of  the  repre- 
sentation of  any  State,  by  the  uniting  of  all  its  members, 
or  by  their  conformity  to  instructions  received  from  their 
constituency,  the  will  of  the  State  so  represented  ;  and 
the  combination  of  such  expressions  in  a  majority  of 
States  would  result  in  the  passage  of  a  measure  by  such 
combination  of  States,  which  would  not  necessarily 
involve  a  numerical  majority  of  all  the  citizens  of  the 
United  States.*  And,  on  the  other  hand,  the  members 


grounded  on  the  idea  of  sovereignty  in  the  States  ;  and  every  inde- 
pendent community,  as  we  have  already  seen,  is  equal  by  the  law  of 
nations,  and  has  a  perfect  right  to  dictate  its  own  terms,  before  it 
enters  into  a  social  compact.  On  the  principle  of  consolidation  of 
the  States,  this  organization  would  have  been  inadmissible,  for  in 
that  case  each  State  would  have  been  merged  in  one  single  and  entire 
government.  At  the  time  the  Articles  of  Confederation  were  prepar- 
ing, it  was  attempted  to  allow  the  State  an  influence  and  power  in 
Congress  in  a  ratio  to  their  numbers  and  wealth  ;  but  the  idea  of 
separate  and  independent  States  was  at  that  day  so  strongly  cherished 
that  the  proposition  met  with  no  success." — I  KENT'S  Commen- 
taries, p.  225. 

*  Men  have  often  debated  the  question  of  the  right  of  constitu- 
encies to  instruct  their  representatives.  The  right  is  not  here  referred 
to  as  derived  from  any  provision  of  constitutional  law,  but  rather  as 
one  of  those  which  are  necessarily  involved  in  the  relation  between 
the  two  parties  on  the  general  principles  of  agency.  Every  principal 
has  the  right  to  instruct  his  agent  ;  and  if  the  agent  prefers  his  dis- 
cretion to  his  instructions,  he  has  the  power  to  do  so,  and  he  may  be 
held  responsible  for  the  preference,  or  the  principal  may  approve  the 
act  as  justifiable  under  the  circumstances. 

The  constituency  which  has  the  right  to  elect  constitutes  the 
representative  its  agent — to  represent  and  act  for  it ;  and  if  he  be 
instructed  to  act  in  a  certain  way,  and  prefers  to  act  in  another 
way,  he  takes  the  responsibility  of  using  his  own  discretion,  instead 
of  that  of  those  who  constituted  him.  Circumstances  may  justify 
such  departure  from  instruction  ;  but  that  cannot  disprove  the  right 


THE   CIVIL   ANALOGY.  235 

representing  the  States  might,  in  either  or  both  Houses, 
so  vote  individually  that  their  vote,  uniting  with  that  of 
the  representatives  of  States  other  than  their  own,  would 
join  in  the  expression  of  a  popular  will  different  from  the 
popular  will  of  their  own  State.  The  question  of  the 
probability  of  either  of  these  courses  being  pursued  is 
not  so  material  as  the  question  of  its  possibility  ;  and 
this  being  recognized,  it  is  obvious  that  in  the  American 
civil  system  the  will  of  the  numerical  majority  is  always 
capable  of  being  held  in  check  by  the  will  of  the  concur- 
rent majority. 

The  correspondence  of  the  ecclesiastical  with  the 
civil  system  has  already  been  noted  in  respect  to  the 
constitution  of  two  Houses  and  their  necessary  con- 
currence in  legislative  acts,  and  also  in  respect  to  the 
triple  concurrence  involved  in  this  joint  action.  It  must 
now  be  added  that  the  correspondence  extends  further 
than  this, "and  indicates  in  the  ecclesiastical  system  a 
very  firm  grasp  of  this  principle  of  the  concurrent  ma- 
jority, and  a  very  effective  application  of  it  in  meeting 
the  needs  and  obviating  the  difficulties  involved  in  its 
formation. 

Several  apparent  dangers  were  to  be  guarded  against 
in  providing  a  common  government  for  the  members  of 
the  Church  scattered  through  the  various  States  of  the 
Union — the  irresponsible  dominion  of  Bishops  over 
clergy  and  laity  ;  the  combination  of  Bishops  and  clergy 


to  instruct,  nor  the  right  of  censure  upon  disobedience.  Neither  can 
the  fact  that  the  personal  membership  of  the  electing  constituency 
changes  from  time  to  time,  destroy  the  identity  of  the  constituency. 
The  constituency,  in  the  legal  act  of  election  under  any  settled  and 
permanent  system,  has  a  continuous  legal  existence,  irrespective  of 
personal  changes. 


236  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

in  a  dominion  over  laity  ;  the  dominion  of  the  laity 
over  the  clergy ;  the  combination  of  a  majority  of 
Churches  in  some  States  over  a  minority  in  others — or, 
as  we  would  now  express  it,  the  combination  of  a  majority 
over  a  minority  of  Dioceses  ;  the  dominion  of  a  numerical 
majority  of  all  members  of  the  Church  in  the  States  over 
a  minority  of  the  same.  These  were  all  possibilities  to 
be  guarded  against  in  the  framing  of  a  representative 
system  of  government ;  and  they  were  all  anticipated, 
and  as  far  as  possible  obviated,  by  an  adherence  to  this 
principle  of  the  concurrent  majority.  The  Bishops  can 
make  no  law  without  the  concurrence  of  clergy  and 
laity;  the  Bishops  and  clergy,  no  law  without  the  con- 
currence of  the  laity ;  the  laity,  no  law  without  the 
concurrence  of  the  Bishops  and  clergy.  The  constitu- 
tional majority  of  the  House  of  Deputies  on  legislative 
questions  (as  distinguished  from  the  majority  required 
in  order  to  alterations  of  the  constitution)  is  not  a  ma- 
jority of  Dioceses,  but  a  majority  of  Dioceses  represented 
by  clergy,  concurring  with  a  majority  of  Dioceses  repre- 
sented by  laity — quite  a  different  matter.  And  in  case 
this  concurrent  majority  should  happen  to  be  coincident 
with  a  majority  of  Dioceses  (which  is  as  likely  not  to 
be  as  to  be),  such  majority  may  still  be  controlled  by  a 
majority  of  Bishops,  including  (in  the  Episcopal  repre- 
sentation of  the  Dioceses)  the  whole  of  the  opposing 
minority.  And,  finally,  the  constitutional  majority  is  not 
a  numerical  majority  of  deputies  representing  a  majority 
of  all  members  of  the  Church  as  against  the  Bishops,  but 
a  majority  of  those  who  represent  one  set  of  interests  in 
the  Church  concurring  with  a  majority  of  those  who 
represent  another  set  of  interests.  All  of  which  seems 
to  show  that  the  correspondencies  of  representation  and 


THE   CIVIL  ANALOGY.  237 

legislation  in  the  two  systems  were  not  the  result  of  a 
mere  superficial  imitation  on  the  part  of  the  later  of  the 
two,  but  were  the  legitimate  fruit  of  the  clear  compre- 
hension of  a  common  principle  in  all  its  essential  bear- 
ings ;  and  although  analysis  and  not  laudation  is  the 
purpose  of  these  pages,  yet  they  may  be  permitted  to 
reproduce,  what  their  author  has  before  ventured  to 
affirm,  that  in  comprehensiveness  of  design  and  precision 
of  expression  the  provisions  of  this  Ecclesiastical  Con- 
stitution on  this  subject  may  challenge  comparison  with 
any  charter  of  any  government  of  any  kind  ;  and  that 
for  the  wisdom  and  power  evinced  by  Bishop  White  in 
the  conception  and  formulation  of  the  plan  errhodied 
in  that  Constitution,  he  deserves  to  be  immortal  in  the 
annals  of  statesmanship.* 

(<?)  The  parallel  of  the  judiciary  might  be  sufficiently 
disposed  of  with  the  remark  that,  as  the  framers  of  the 
Civil  Constitution  did  not  fully  set  forth  their  judicial 
system  in  that  instrument,  but  left  much  to  the  delibera- 
tion of  Congress  in  the  future,  so  the  framers  of  the 
Ecclesiastical  Constitution  did  not  find  themselves  in  a 
position  to  establish  a  general  ecclesiastical  judiciary. 

It  is  worth  while  to  observe,  however,  that  the  course 
which  was  pursued  by  the  latter,  in  relegating  to  the 
State  or  Diocesan  Conventions  the  prescribing  of  the 
mode  of  trial  of  clergymen,  involves  two  things  which 
bear  directly  upon  the  subject  in  hand  :  (i)  The  pointed 
omission  either  to  devolve  judicial  functions  upon  the 
General  Convention  which  they  were  establishing,  or  to 
recognize  their  existence  in  the  conventions  in  the 
States  ;  and  (2)  the  reservation  of  the  legislative  power 

*  Cf.  "  The  System  of  Representation  in  General  Convention," 
"Church  Eclectic,"  October,  1889. 


238  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

necessary  to  the  lawful  regulation  of  judicial  functions 
to  the  Churches  in  the  States.  It  was  not  until  1841  that 
the  article  of  1789,  containing  the  provision  to  this  effect, 
was  put  into  its  present  shape,  which  shows  a  continued 
adherence  to  the  same  principles  ;  the  legislative  power 
of  regulating  judicial  functions  so  far  as  related  to 
Bishops  being  then  lodged  in  the  General  Convention, 
by  giving  to  it  the  authority  of  prescribing  the  mode  of 
trial  in  that  case  ;  and  the  prescribing  of  the  mode  of  trial 
of  Presbyters  and  Deacons  being  left  where  it  had  been 
from  the  beginning,  in  the  State  or  Diocesan  Convention.* 

(/)  The  parallel  of  development  is  the  last  which  need 
be  noted  in  this  connection,  and,  in  treating  of  it,  it  is 
proposed  to  show,  as  briefly  as  may  be  possible — 

(t)  The  correspondence  in  regard  to  the  original 
extent  of  jurisdiction  in  the  two  systems  ;  and 

(2)  The  correspondence  in  the  general  policy  used  in 
the  two  systems  in  regard  to  the  principles  of  the  exten- 
sion of  that  jurisdiction. 

(i)  The  seventh  article  of  the  United  States  Constitu- 
tion is  as  follows  :  "  The  ratification  of  the  conventions 
of  nine  States  shall  be  sufficient  for  the  establishment  of 
this  Constitution  between  the  States  so  ratifying  the 
same." 

It  should  hardly  be  necessary  to  offer  an  argument  to 
show  that  jurisdiction,  as  contemplated  by  this  Constitu- 
tion, did  not  extend  to  any  State  not  so  ratifying  the 
same.  Really  the  language  admits  of  no  other  interpre- 
tation, whatever  inferences  may  be  drawn  by  one  school 
or  another  as  to  the  capacity  of  ratification  to  produce 
an  insoluble  fusion  of  the  peoples  of  previously  existing 


*  Eccl.  Const.,  Art.  vi. 


THE   CIVIL   ANALOGY.  239 

political  entities,  which  inferences  raise  an  entirely  dis- 
tinct question.* 


*  "  Although  the  Articles  of  Confederation  required  the  consent  of 
all  the  States  for  the  least  change  in  the  Constitution,  and  the  con- 
vention had  only  been  authorized  to  consider  a  revision  of  these 
Articles,  it  had  yet  ventured,  in  its  proposal  for  a  radical  reorganiza- 
tion of  the  Union,  to  adopt  the  provision  that  the  new  constitution 
should  come  into  force  as  soon  as  it  had  been  adopted  by  nine  States. 
This  did  not  involve  any  tyranny  by  a  majority,  because  it  was  ex- 
pressly provided  that  the  ratification  was  to  be  good  only  for  the 
ratifying  States.  In  case  four  States,  or  less  than  four,  did  not 
ratify,  they  thus,  ipso  facto,  cut  themselves  out  of  the  Union  until 
they  thought  good  to  enter  it,  or  the  other  States,  perhaps  by  force 
of  irresistible  necessity,  compelled  them  to  do  so.  But  such  compul- 
sion certainly  could  have  been  tried  with  success  only  against  the 
smaller  States,  and  in  that  case,  as  we  shall  see  later  more  closely, 
the  whole  fundamental  law  of  the  new  federal  power  would  have 
been  shattered  and  racked  in  a  terrible  way." — VON  HOLST,  The 
Constitutional  Law  of  the  United  States,  p.  23. 

The  very  learned  author,  in  accord  with  this  lucid  statement,  stig- 
matizes, as  evidence  of  the  untrustworthiness  of  another  author,  the 
assertion  that  "the  fundamental  law,  according  to  Article  VII.,  was 
to  come  into  force  for  all  the  States  represented  in  the  Convention  at 
Philadelphia,  when  nine  of  them  approved  it "  (p.  23,  «.).  He  him- 
self, however,  uses  language  which  seems  to  imply  exactly  the  same 
error,  although  it  is  difficult,  in  view  of  his  foregoing  statement,  to 
think  that  the  implication  was  intended  :  "  March  4,  1789,  the  new 
federal  powers  came  into  existence,  although  North  Carolina  and 
Rhode  Island  had  not  yet  adopted  the  Constitution.  The  legal  posi- 
tion which  these  two  States  occupied  in  regard  to  the  Union  was  not 
sharply  insisted  upon,  because  their  delay  could  not  be  of  any  espe- 
cial importance,  and  no  one  doubted  that  they  would  soon  overcome 
their  scruples  "  (p.  26). 

It  is  possible,  however,  that  this  implication  may  have  been  an 
incidental  result  of  the  convictions  of  the  writer  in  regard  to  the 
original  unity  of  the  people  throughout  the  colonies.  In  his  view, 
which  it  is  needless  to  say  is  sustained  with  great  power,  the  confed- 


24°  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

Nor,  although  this  express  statement  is  absent  from 
the  Ecclesiastical  Constitution,  can  it  be  necessary  to 
repeat,  what  has  been  already  demonstrated,  that  juris- 
diction under  it  extended  to  such  Churches  in  States  as 
had  adopted  it,  and  to  no  others. 

But  it  is  necessary  to  remember  that  in  both  systems 
it  was  presumed  that  this  jurisdiction  would  be  extended 
and  not  remain  restricted  to  its  original  elements. 

Section  3  of  the  fourth  article  of  the  United  States 
Constitution  provides  that  "-new  States  may  be  admitted 
by  the  Congress  into  this  Union."  And  the  fifth  article 
of  the  Ecclesiastical  Constitution  of  1789  is  as  follows  : 

"  A  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  any  of  the  United 
States,  not  now  represented,  may,  at  any  time  hereafter, 
be  admitted,  on  acceding  to  this  Constitution." 

The  difference  which  appears  upon  the  face  of  these 
provisions  is,  that  the  admission  of  a  new  State  must  be 
by  Congress,  which  may  withhold  its  consent  ;  whereas 


eration  as  between  independent  and  sovereign  States  was  in  itself  a 
revolution,  and  the  combination  of  the  States  in  Union  was  simply 
a  return  to  the  original  unity.  He  holds  the  States  never  to  have 
been,  in  any  proper  sense,  sovereign,  but  to  have  recognized  in  each 
other  a  sovereignty  by  common  consent,  for  the  purpose  of  consti- 
tuting a  Union  which  buried  such  common  consent  in  a  perpetual 
fusion.  (Cf.  pp.  3-32,  37-44-) 

It  might  be  a  matter  of  some  interest  to  inquire  on  what  ground 
the  sovereignty  of  an  independent  State  anywhere  in  the  civilized 
world  rests,  other  than  that  of  the  common  consent  of  those  making 
the  same  claim  with  itself  ;  but  the  inquiry  is  not  to  the  present 
point ;  for  neither  the  origin  of  the  sovereignty,  nor  the  operation  of 
the  constitution  upon  those  States  by  which  it  was  ratified,  affects 
the  fact  that  the  Constitution  was  of  force  upon  such  States  only  as 
had  ratified,  and  not  upon  others  until  they  did  ratify  ;  as  to  which, 
notwithstanding  his  incidental  implication  on  page  26,  the  other 
statements  (p.  23)  of  the  learned  professor  seem  to  leave  no  doubt. 


THE    CIVIL   ANALOGY.  241 

the  admission  of  a  new  member  into  the  Ecclesiastical 
Union  is,  upon  its  accession  to  the  Constitution,  without 
the  express  requirement  of  the  consent  of  General  Con- 
vention. From  which  some  have  inferred  that  the  Gen- 
eral Convention  has  no  voice  in  the  admission  of  new 
members.*  It  would  seem  more  consonant,  however,  to 
the  civil  analogy,  to  regard  that  provision  as  understood, 
if  not  expressed,  and  to  suppose  that  the  common  au- 
thority of  the  Union  should  have  been  presumed  to  have 
the  power  of  expressing  that  consent  to  the  admission  of 
a  new  member  which  it  is  the  right  of  every  association 
to  give  or  withhold.  But  as  the  ecclesiastical  framers 
left  this  to  be  matter  of  inference,  and  refrained  from 
perfecting  their  civil  analogy  in  this  case,  we  may,  per- 
haps, pass  it  by  as  one  of  the  very  few  indications  of 
that  inequality  of  gait  which  is  proverbially  attributed  to 
all  analogies. 

There  appears,  nevertheless,  a  substantial  correspond- 
ence in  the  two  constitutions  in  regard  to  the  recognition 
of  the  extent  of  jurisdiction,  and  in  regard  to  the  pur- 
pose that  this  jurisdiction  should  be  further  extended. 

(2)  The  correspondence  in  the  general  policy  used  in 
the  two  systems  in  regard  to  the  principles  of  the  exten- 
sion of  that  jurisdiction  appears — 

(a)  In  the  recognition  of  newly  admitted  members  of 
either  Union   as  standing  in  the  same  relation   to  the 
Union  itself,  and  to  the  other  constituent  parts  of  the 
Union,  as  if  it  had  been  one  of  the  original  constituent 
parts  ;  and 

(b)  In  the  exercise  of  jurisdiction  by  each  over  depend- 

*  See  an  article  of  characteristic  ability  and  brilliancy  by  the  late 
Rev.  Dr.  J.  H.  Hopkins,  on  the  question  of  the  admission  of  Dako- 
ta, contributed  to  the  "American  Church  Review,"  April,  1881. 
16 


242  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

ent  districts  or  groups  of  individual  members  not  being, 
as  such,  constituent  parts  of  the  Union. 

(a]  For  the  establishment  of  the  first  correspondence 
it  is  hardly  necessary  to  do  more  than  state  the  fact. 
Every  State  admitted  into  the  Union  becomes,  by  virtue 
of  such  admission,  the  equal  in  the  political  system  of 
every  unit  in  that  system.  Whether  this  be  the  result 
of  a  sort  of  fiction  of  law  whereby  that  is  reputed  to 
be  done  which  ought  and  is  intended  to  be  done,  or 
the  result  of  the  accession  of  a  previously  independent 
sovereignty  to  an  already  existing  association  or  union 
of  sovereignties,  the  case  is  the  same.  The  most  ex- 
treme advocate  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  States,  and  the 
most  extreme  fusionist,  appear  to  hold  the  same  doc- 
trine on  that  point. 

And  so  far  as  the  ecclesiastical  system  is  concerned, 
there  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  same  doctrine  in  regard  to 
the  admission  of  Dioceses — Dioceses  being  legally  and 
constitutionally  the  equivalent,  under  the  existing  system, 
of  Churches  within  States  in  the  system  as  originally 
founded,  each  Diocese  having  been  originally  conter- 
minous with  the  State.*  Every  Diocese  that  is  admitted 
on  acceding  to  the  Constitution,  being  the  equal,  in  the 

*  In  the  General  Convention  of  1838  an  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution was  adopted,  whereby  the  word  Diocese  was  made  to  take 
the  place  of  the  word  State.  The  amendment  resulted  from  the 
division  of  the  Diocese  of  New  York,  which  had  hitherto  been  the 
Church  in  the  State  of  New  York,  into  the  Diocese  of  New  York 
and  the  Diocese  of  Western  New  York.  The  question  raised  by  this 
first  instance  of  division  was  settled  by  the  amendment  which  recog- 
nized the  Diocese  as  the  equivalent  in  the  system  of  the  Church 
within  the  State  ;  and  incidentally  sanctioned  the  converse  of  the 
proposition  that  the  Church  in  the  State  was  the  diocesan  unit  in  the 
system  prior  to  the  amendment. 


THE   CIVIL   ANALOGY.  243 

system  of  the  Church  Representative,  of  every  other 
Diocese,  has  the  same  rights  under  the  system  as  if  it 
had  been  originally  one  of  its  constituent  parts  ;  a  state- 
ment which  will  hardly  be  denied  either  by  those  with 
whom  the  acceptance  of  the  supremacy  of  General  Con- 
vention does  not  involve  the  acknowledgment  of  its  in- 
herent sovereignty,  or  by  those  who  conceive  of  the  Dio- 
ceses as  existing  only  by  permission  of  that  body,  and 
as  enjoying  an  equality  of  no  rights  worth  mentioning. 

(£)  The  second  correspondence  is  somewhat  more 
difficult  to  state  and  explain,  but  it  is,  upon  observation, 
sufficiently  exact. 

The  civil  system  of  the  United  States  involves  more 
than  the  federal  union  of  distinct  political  parts.  This 
federal  union  is  the  basis  of  the  system  ;  but  the  system 
being  founded,  the  community  comes  into  political  exist- 
ence— legally  and  constitutionally,  as  well  as  morally — 
by  virtue  of  it ;  and  that  community  as  a  whole,  repre- 
sented by  its  common  government  having  direct  and 
immediate  jurisdiction  within  a  certain  sphere  over  the 
individual  members  of  it,  has  certain  common  interests 
in  which  all  its  members  are  concerned,  and  of  which 
the  common  government  is  the  guardian  and  adminis- 
trator. 

In  no  respect  is  this  more  obvious  than  in  regard  to 
territory  external  to  the  limits  of  the  constituent  parts  of 
the  Union,  whether  that  territory  be  regarded  merely  as 
property,  or  also  as  the  place  of  residence  of  members  of 
that  community,  coming  originally  from  one  of  the  States, 
but  carrying  with  them  the  inherent  privilege  of  member- 
ship in  the  community,  and  along  with  that  the  motive 
and  expectation  of  having  ultimately  in  that  place  of 
residence  the  advantage  of  the  formation  of  the  district 


244  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

which  contains  it  into  a  constituent  part  of  the  Union. 
The  care  of  that  territory,  in  either  aspect  or  both  as- 
pects of  it,  devolves  of  necessity  upon  the  general  govern- 
ment ;  and  in  the  exercise  of  that  care  it  provides  for  and 
maintains  territorial  governments  more  or  less  assimi- 
lated to  States  in  their  political  arrangement,  but  not  pos- 
sessing— as  in  the  nature  of  things  they  could  not  possess 
— the  rights  of  States  as  constituent  members  of  the 
Union.  The  executive  and  judicial  officers  of  such  ter- 
ritories are  appointed  by  the  general  government  ;  and 
although  they  are  incapable  of  representation  in  Con- 
gress in  the  proper  and  constitutional  sense  of  the  word, 
yet  they  are  allowed  by  law  a  delegate  who  may  speak 
for  them  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  but  who  has 
no  vote  in  that  body.* 

In  like  manner  in  the  ecclesiastical  system,  although 
the  federation  of  Dioceses  was  from  the  beginning  its 
essential  characteristic,  yet  the  Church — even  as  the 
Church  Representative — is  something  more  than  a  feder- 
ation. If  the  Ecclesiastical  Union  were  desirable  at 
all,  it  was  desirable  that  it  should  be  extended.  If  the 
grouping  of  Dioceses  existing  within  the  limits  of  the 
same  civil  government  was  in  conformity  with  sound 
Church  principle,  it  was  in  derogation  of  sound  Church 
principle  that  any  Diocese  should,  without  the  gravest 
reason  touching  the  very  life  of  the  Church,  hold  itself 
aloof  from  that  Union.  And  more  than  this,  if  there 
were  scattering  members  of  the  Church  in  outlying  dis- 
tricts which  were  not  States,  they  could  not  consistently 
be  left  uncared  for  by  the  Church,  any  more  than  the 
districts  themselves  could  be  regarded  as  beyond  the 

*  Cf.  von  Hoist,  "  The  Constitutional  Law  of  the  United  States 
of  America,"  pp.  175-184. 


THE   CIVIL  ANALOGY.  245 

pale  of  the  protection  of  the  civil  authority.  Hence  it 
came  to  pass  that  in  connection  with  the  Ecclesiastical 
Union,  as  well  as  with  the  Civil  Union,  and  for  the  same 
general  reason,  there  should  be  developed  a  system  of 
dependencies  which  was  in  the  beginning  formally  out- 
side of  the  Union  itself,  but  which  in  each  case  grew 
naturally  out  of  the  principles  of  the  Union,  although 
not  entirely  and  specifically  provided  for  by  its  Consti- 
tution. 

In  short,  as  the  single  Diocese  was,  in  the  system,  con- 
templated as  the  Church  in  the  State,  so  the  Ecclesiasti- 
cal Union  was  to  be  coextensive  with  the  Civil  Union  ; 
and  though  many  a  year  was  to  pass  before  the  formu- 
lation of  the  canonical  maxim  (Digest,  Tit,  I.,  can.  19, 
sec.  vi.  [4]),  that  the  jurisdiction  of  this  Church  extends  in 
right,  though  not  always  in  form,  to  all  persons  belong- 
ing to  it  within  the  United  States,  yet  no  sooner  was 
the  formal  organization  complete  in  the  majority  of  the 
States  than  the  effort  began  to  be  made  to  reach  out 
beyond  the  limits  of  these  States.  In  the  second  regular 
General  Convention  (1792)  it  was  resolved  that  a  joint 
committee  of  both  Houses  be  appointed  to  report  a  plan 
for  supporting  missionaries  to  preach  the  Gospel  on  the 
frontiers  of  the  United  States.  And  in  1808  a  com- 
mittee was  appointed  to  address  the  Church  in  certain 
districts,  with  a  view  :  (i)  to  urge  Churches  represented 
in  General  Convention  to  send  regularly  a  deputation  ; 
(2)  to  invite  the  Church  in  every  State  in  which  it  is 
organized,  and  which  has  not  acceded  to  the  Constitution, 
to  accede  to  the  same  ;  (3)  to  invite  the  clergy  and  some 
of  the  most  respectable  lay  members  in  the  States  and 
Territories,  in  which  the  Church  has  not  been  organ- 
ized, to  organize  and  accede  to  this  Constitution.  And 


246  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

this  committee  was  authorized,  moreover,  to  consider 
and  determine  on  the  proper  mode  of  sending  a  Bishop 
into  said  States  and  Territories,  and  in  case  of  a  reason- 
able prospect  of  accomplishing  this  object,  to  elect  a  suit- 
able person  to  such  Episcopacy,  any  three  Bishops  being 
authorized  to  consecrate  such  person  on  the  proper  cer- 
tificates ;  provided,  that  the  jurisdiction  assigned  to  him 
should  not  interfere  with  the  rights  of  any  State  or 
Diocese  which  should  thereafter  adopt  the  Constitution.* 
The  purport  of  these  resolutions,  besides  its  bearing 
upon  the  nature  of  the  ecclesiastical  system,  very  plainly 
indicates  the  policy  of  the  General  Convention  in  the 
process  of  extending  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Union,  and 
particularly  the  care  which  was,  in  that  policy,  to  be 
taken  of  the  interests  of  the  Church  in  the  outlying  dis- 
tricts of  the  Union.  From  this  beginning  has  been  devel- 
oped the  whole  of  the  missionary  system,  which,  though 
a  distinct  system  canonically  grafted  upon  the  system  of 
the  Church  Representative,  is  yet  in  substance  a  depend- 
ence upon  the  community  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Union 
under  the  care  of  its  general  government.  And  although 
the  later  theory,  induced  by  increasing  earnestness  in  the 
fulfilment  of  missionary  duty,  has  been  that  the  whole 
Church  is  one  great  missionary  society — which  is  per- 
fectly true,  when  rightly  understood — yet  care  has  been 
taken  to  preserve  the  proper  relations  and  distinctions  in 
the  work  of  that  society  in  connection  with  the  common 
government  of  the  community  organized  in  Ecclesiastical 
Union  ;  the  society,  although  actually  of  the  same  indi- 
vidual membership  as  the  community,  being  neverthe- 
less, as  such,  the  chartered  creation  of  the  common  gov- 

*  Bioren's  "  Journals  of  General  Convention,"  p.  252.     Cf.  "  The 
Church  Cyclopaedia,"  title,  "General  Convention." 


THE   CIVIL  ANALOGY,  247 

ernment  of  that  community,  and  having  its  constitution 
canonically  imposed  upon  it.*  So  that  not  only  the  be- 
ginning of  the  missionary  movement,  but  also  the  main 
course  of  its  development,  have  been  based  upon  princi- 
ples entirely  harmonious  with  principles  of  the  Ecclesi- 
astical Union  corresponding  with  those  of  the  Civil  Union. 
And  this  parallel  of  development  may  be  fairly  said  to  be 
evinced  not  only  in  respect  of  conformity  in  principle, 
but  also  in  respect  of  similarity  in  particular  provisions  ; 
as  may  appear  from  the  facts  that  the  appointment  of 
missionary  Bishops,  the  rulers  in  the  missionary  depend- 
encies, is  made  by  the  general  government  of  the 
Church,  and  that  the  Church  in  the  missionary  jurisdic- 
tions is  not  entitled  to  representation  by  deputies  in  the 
General  Convention,  but  has  the  privilege  allowed  to  it  of 
the  sending  of  a  delegation  with  right  of  speaking  but 
without  the  power  to  vote — as  is  the  case  of  the  terri- 
tories under  the  civil  system. 

It  must  not  be  concealed,  however,  that  in  tracing  this 
parallel  of  development,  notwithstanding  the  general  cor- 
respondence in  principle,  and  the  similarity  in  particular 
provisions,  there  appears  one  notable  difference,  and 
that  is  that  the  dependencies  in  the  ecclesiastical  system 
have  a  certain  kind  of  representation  in  the  general  gov- 
ernment which  they  have  not,  and  cannot  have,  under 
the  civil  system.  This  difference  can  hardly  be  said  to 
preclude  the  parallel,  because  the  nature  of  the  represen- 
tation is  different  from  that  of  the  civil  system,  and 
comes,  not  from  the  fact  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Union,  but 
from  the  fact  of  the  larger  federation  involved  in  the 
constitution  of  the  Apostolic  office.  Representation  in 
the  civil  system  depends  entirely  upon  the  choice  of  the 

*  Digest,  Title  III.,  canon  7. 


248  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

people,  or  election  ;  representation  in  the  ecclesiastical 
system  is,  in  its  conformity  to  the  civil  system  with 
which  it  is  here  brought  into  neighborhood,  very  largely 
— that  is,  in  the  case  of  clerical  and  lay  deputies — in  like 
manner  dependent  upon  election.  But  there  is,  besides, 
the  Episcopal  representation,  which  is  not  dependent 
upon  the  election  of  Bishops  as  representatives,  but  upon 
their  essential  relation  to  their  Episcopal  jurisdictions. 

Whether  the  Bishops  are  to  be  regarded  as  represent- 
ing their  Dioceses  in  the  House  in  which,  under  this 
ecclesiastical  system,  they  have  their  seats,  is  a  point 
disputed.  If  by  a  representative  is  meant  one  who  is 
chosen  expressly  for  representation,  the  Bishops  are  of 
course  not  representative.  They  are  not  specifically  dele- 
gated or  empowered  to  represent  anything.  Not  their 
order,  because  they  are  themselves  constituent  parts  of 
it  ;  not  their  Dioceses,  because  they  are  not  chosen  or 
appointed  by  their  Dioceses  for  that  purpose.  But,  in 
another  sense,  they  certainly  are  representative  both  of 
their  order  and  their  Diocese.  They  represent  their  order 
in  their  concurrence  or  disagreement  with  the  representa- 
tives of  other  orders  in  the  other  House.  They  represent 
their  Dioceses  in  their  concurrence  or  disagreement  with 
those  with  whom  they  are  in  conference  in  their  own 
House,  and  who  are  there  with  special  knowledge  of  the 
needs  and  interests  of  their  respective  Dioceses,  and  with 
the  capacity  to  speak  and  act  with  a  view  to  their  benefit. 
This  kind  of  representation  is  intrinsically  involved  in 
their  official  relations.  They  cannot  be  divested,  in  their 
own  deliberations,  of  the  character  of  representation, 
each  one  of  his  own  Diocese  ;  and  the  influence  of  any 
Bishop  in  the  House,  is  the  influence  of  his  Diocese  in 
that  House. 


THE    CIVIL  ANALOGY.  249 

It  follows  from  this  principle,  first,  that  where  there 
are  two  or  more  Bishops  in  any  Diocese  (as  in  the  case 
of  Assistant  Bishops,  actually,  and  in  the  case  of  Bishops 
technically  called  suffragans,  possibly),  the  balance  of  the 
Episcopal  vote  of  the  Dioceses  in  the  Upper  House  is,  in 
so  far,  impaired — some  Dioceses  having  several  Episcopal 
votes  and  others  only  one  ;  and,  secondly,  that  where 
there  are  Bishops  having  charge  of  dependencies  of  the 
Church  exterior  to  the  Dioceses,  the  presence  of  those 
Bishops  in  the  Upper  House,  having — in  that  capacity — 
equal  rights  with  the  Diocesan  Bishops,  impairs,  in  so  far, 
the  balance  of  the  Episcopal  vote  in  the  legislative  body 
with  the  vote  of  the  other  orders  in  the  Lower  House. 

With  regard  to  the  former  of  these  two  consequences, 
that  is,  the  case  of  Assistant  Bishops,  it  is  perhaps  within 
the  letter  of  the  Constitution.  "The  Bishop  or  Bishops 
in  every  Diocese  shall  be  chosen  agreeably  to  such  rules 
as  shall  be  fixed  by  the  Convention  of  that  Diocese,"  is 
the  provision  of  the  present  Article  4,  and  the  provision 
is  found  in  all  previous  phases  of  the  Constitution  from 
its  first  draft  in  1785  to  the  present  time.  Whether  the 
original  intention  was  to  cover  the  possibility  of  Assistant 
Bishops,  or  the  possible  ultimate  need  of  more  Dioceses 
than  one  in  a  State,  or  merely  the  fact  of  the  successive 
elections  to  the  office  which  time  and  mortality  must  pro- 
duce, is  not  apparent.  As  a  matter  of  historical  fact,  the 
first  Assistant  Bishop,  Dr.  Moore,  of  New  York,  conse- 
crated during  the  life  of  Bishop  Provost,  took  his  seat  in 
the  House  of  Bishops  as  a  matter  of  course  ;  and  all 
subsequent  Assistant  Bishops  have  done  the  same  thing. 
It  is  also  a  matter  of  historical  fact  that  there  has  been 
from  about  the  same  period  a  canonical  prohibition  of 
the  consecration  of  suffragan  Bishops,  technically  so 


250  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

called.*  And  therefore  the  only  thing  that  in  fact  has 
impaired,  in  this  aspect,  the  balance  of  the  representation 
in  the  two  Houses  has  been  the  occasional  possession  on 
the  part  of  some  Dioceses  of  more  than  one  Episcopal 
vote  ;  an  arrangement  which  is  obviously  in  each  case 
not  permanent,  but  transient  and  temporary. 

It  is,  however,  with  the  latter  of  these  two  consequences 
that  we  are  concerned  in  the  present  parallel  ;  and  the 
bearing  of  it  upon  that  parallel  is  obvious,  and,  so  far  as 
it  goes,  adverse  to  its  perfection. 

For  in  all  the  dependencies  of  the  American  ecclesi- 
astical system — whether  those  of  domestic  missions,  so 
called,  that  is,  in  American  territories ;  or  those  of  for- 
eign missions,  for  the  conversion  of  heathen  ;  or  those  of 
members  of  this  Church  residing  or  sojourning  in  foreign 
countries,  being  by  canon  placed  under  designated  Epis- 
copal jurisdiction — while  they  have  none  of  them  a 
representative  in  the  General  Convention  under  the 

*  A  Suffragan  Bishop,  properly  so  called,  is  a  Diocesan  Bishop  in 
a  Province  ;  such  Bishops  being  called  to  give  their  suffrages,  or 
votes,  in  regard  to  matters  to  be  considered  in  Synod  or  Council,  in 
which  original  sense,  the  word  suffragan  is  very  suggestive  of  the 
federate  character  of  such  bodies.  In  its  technical  sense,  as  used 
in  England  and  this  country,  the  word  refers  to  a  Bishop  constituted 
to  act  as  a  sort  of  deputy.  This  use  of  the  term  is  derived  from 
Statute  of  Parliament  in  the  reign  of  Henry  VIII.,  which  provided 
for  the  constitution  of  Bishops  in  certain  Sees,  with  a  specified  and 
limited  local  jurisdiction  ;  such  suffragans  being  by  their  consecra- 
tion actually  Bishops,  but  forbidden  to  exercise  the  power  belonging 
to  the  office,  except  in  the  performance  of  certain  functions.  The 
office  thus  provided  for  in  England,  and  prohibited  by  American 
canon,  is  really  the  same  as  that  of  the  Chorepiscopus  of  ancient 
times — a  Bishop,  who  acted  in  the  outlying  regions  of  the  Ttapoiuia, 
and  performed  such  acts  of  assistance  in  the  minor  functions  of  his 
office  as  the  Bishop  of  the  See  required. 


THE   CIVIL  ANALOGY.  251 

Ecclesiastical  Constitution  as  constituent  members  of 
the  Ecclesiastical  Union,  not  being  such  constituent 
members,  in  which  respect  the  parallel  with  the  civil 
system  holds,  yet  there  is  not  actually  a  total  want  of 
representation,  because  the  Bishops  respectively  charged 
with  the  care  of  these  dependencies  have  a  right,  in  that 
capacity,  to  speak  and  act  for  them  in  the  House  of 
Bishops.  The  domestic  and  foreign  missionary  Bishops 
representing  their  Episcopal  jurisdictions  in  fact,  and  by 
the  right  to  a  seat  in  the  House  conferred  upon  them 
by  canon  *  (not  by  the  Constitution,  wherein  their  exist- 
ence was  not  originally  contemplated,  and  from  the  later 
amendments  to  which  they  derive  no  such  right),  and 
having  the  canonical  right  not  only  to  represent  their 
jurisdictions,  but  also  to  vote  on  all  questions,  do,  in  so 
far,  present  a  discrepancy  in  the  parallel  of  development ; 
for  they  show  a  policy  different  from  that  of  the  civil 
system  in  this  respect,  in  development,  though  not  in 
original  constitution. 

To  account  for  this  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  there 
has  been  a  very  general  persuasion  in  the  minds  of 
venerable  Bishops  and  other  learned  men  that  the 
Bishops  did  not  sit  in  the  General  Convention  as  in  any 
respect  representative  of  their  Dioceses,  but  as  Bishops 
in  the  Church  of  God.  It  would  be  natural,  then,  that 
the  feeling  should  prevail,  and  find  expression  in  canons, 
that  all  the  Bishops,  as  well  Missionary  as  Diocesan, 
should  be  entitled  to  seats  in  the  House  of  Bishops  on 
equal  terms. 

Yet  these  canons — whether  or  not  similar  laws  under 
the  circumstances  in  the  civil  system  would  be  decided 


*  Digest,  Tit.  I.,  can.  19,  sec.  vi.  [7],  sec.  vii.  [2]. 


25 2  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 

to  be  unconstitutional — are  clearly  an  accretion  upon  the 
ecclesiastical  system,  as  containing  legislation  not  con- 
templated nor  provided  for  in  its  Constitution.  That  the 
Bishops  having  charge  of  the  dependencies  should  be 
received  to  speak  for  their  own  work  and  jurisdiction, 
would  be  quite  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  the 
ecclesiastical  system  ;  but  that  they  should  be  admitted 
to  an  equal  vote,  and,  much  beyond  this,  to  an  equal 
share  in  the  legislative  function  of  the  Episcopal  House, 
is  not  legitimately  to  be  inferred  from  these  principles. 
The  right  cannot  be  deduced  from  a  Constitution  which 
was  designed  to  be  the  organic  law  of  the  association 
of  Dioceses,  or  Churches  within  States,  which  were  the 
component  parts  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Union.  It  would 
seem  justifiable  only  on  the  principle  that,  by  virtue  of  a 
larger  federation  than  that  based  upon  this  Constitution, 
the  Bishops  come  together  in  council  to  determine  upon 
the  common  interest  of  the  people  entrusted  to  their 
care  ;  and  although  this  would  be  justifiable  while  the 
Bishops  sit  in  council,  yet  it  is  quite  different  when  they 
sit  as  members  of  one  House  of  a  body  constituted  to 
make  laws  for  the  whole  number  of  its  members.  The 
powers  of  the  Bishops  as  a  council  are  one  thing ; 
their  powers  as  a  branch  of  the  supreme  legislature  are 
another  thing,  and  are  limited  as  to  the  mode  of  their 
exercise  by  that  Constitution,  to  the  observance  of  which 
they  are,  in  this  ecclesiastical  system,  under  as  much 
obligation  as  any  of  its  members.  And  while  it  must  be 
allowed  that  the  extension  of  the  Episcopal  representa- 
tion by  the  admission  of  other  than  Diocesan  Bishops  to 
equal  rights  in  the  exercise  of  the  function  of  legislation 
in  this  constitutional  system  involves,  in  so  far,  the  im- 
perfection of  the  parallel  of  development  in  the  civil 


THE   CIVIL  ANALOGY.  253 

analogy,  as  well  as  other  inconveniences,  yet  it  must  be 
said  that  it  involves  also,  in  the  same  degree,  a  departure 
from  the  original  principles  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
Ecclesiastical  Union.* 


*  The  question  of  the  representative  character  of  the  Bishops  sit- 
ting as  a  House  of  General  Convention  should  not  be  complicated 
with  the  question  of  the  necessary  quorum,  as  has  sometimes  been 
done,  arguing  from  a  position  taken  by  Bishop  White  (Hawks, 
"Constitution  and  Canons,"  Arts.  2  and  3).  The  two  questions  are 
quite  distinct. 

"in  1808,  when  the  attendance  on  the  House  of  Bishops,  in  fact, 
consisted  only  of  Bishop  White  and  Bishop  Claggett,  and  when  it 
had  been  anticipated  that  the  latter  would  be  prevented  by  indisposi- 
tion from  being  present,  Bishop  White  records  ("  Memoirs,"  p.  192) 
that  he  was  prepared  to  maintain  that  a  single  Bishop  may  consti- 
tute a  House.  This  he  rests  on  two  grounds  :  (i)  As  being  the  most 
agreeable  to  the  letter  of  the  Constitution.  (2)  Because  in  the  in- 
stance named  there  could  otherwise  have  been  nothing  done.  In 
respect  to  both  reasons  the  venerable  Bishop  may  well  be  conceded 
to  be  right,  without  touching  the  representative  character  of  such 
Bishop  or  Bishops  as  may  attend.  The  instance  would  only  prove 
that  there  was  but  one  Diocese  then  represented  in  the  Episcopal 
House,  and  that  the  others  had  not,  in  the  case  supposed,  the  same 
benefit. 

What  exactly  may  have  been  meant,  however,  by  the  plea  that  the 
sufficiency  of  one  Bishop  was  the  most  agreeable  to  the  letter  of 
the  Constitution,  is  not  quite  clear.  The  provision  that  when  there 
should  be  three  or  more  Bishops  they  should  form  a  separate  House 
(Art.  III.),  which  seems  to  be  the  provision  intended,  might  perhaps 
give  reason  for  supposing  that  two  out  of  three  was  the  quorum  con- 
templated by  the  Constitution,  and  Dr.  Vinton  argues  to  this  effect 
("  Man.  Com.,"  pp.  125-128).  But  it  is  difficult  to  see  how,  even 
under  this  very  doubtful  construction,  a  quorum  of  one  would  be  most 
agreeable  to  the  letter  of  the  Constitution,  unless  on  the  ground  that 
one  was  that  number,  under  three,  most  near  to  two  ;  which  could 
hardly  have  been  intended.  If,  however,  by  the  letter  of  the  Con- 
stitution the  Bishop  meant  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  it 


254  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

On  the  whole,  taking  into  consideration  the  antecedent 
history  of  the  Church  in  this  country,  and  the  various 
parallels  which  have  been  in  fact  presented,  it  may  justly 
be  said,  not  only  that  the  civil  analogy  in  the  repre- 
sentative system  of  this  Church  is  plainly  visible,  but  also 
that  the  system  cannot  thoroughly  be  understood  without 
reference  to  that  analogy  ;  and,  further,  it  may  be  said 


might  indeed  be  very  fairly  argued  that,  as  the  Constitution  made  no 
express  requirement  as  to  the  Episcopal  quorum,  the  matter  was  left 
to  the  Bishops,  and,  therefore,  so  long  as  the  Episcopal  House 
appeared  in  General  Convention,  the  purpose  of  the  Constitution 
was  complied  with,  irrespective  of  the  number  present.  The  neces- 
sary interests  of  the  Dioceses  would  be  protected  by  the  requirement 
of  a  representation  of  the  Church  in  a  majority  of  Dioceses  by  the 
clerical  and  lay  deputies,  which  representation  was  in  the  beginning 
all  that  there  was,  and  which  in  the  original  conception  constituted 
the  General  Convention,  the  House  of  Bishops  being  an  afterthought, 
grafted  into  a  system  first  formulated  without  that  feature,  the  due 
effect  and  proportion  of  which  was  only  by  degrees  understood. 
And,  although  it  is  manifest  that  the  question  in  its  actual  bearings, 
when  every  Diocese  has  its  Bishop,  is  very  different  from  the  same 
question  when  there  were  only  three  or  four  Bishops  in  the  country, 
yet  it  may  very  properly  be  held  that,  in  the  absence  of  any  provision 
on  the  subject  in  the  Constitution,  the  Episcopal  quorum  is  within 
the  regulation  of  the  Episcopal  House  itself.  But,  irrespective  of 
the  number  in  attendance,  the  representative  character  of  such  as  do 
attend  is  bound  up  with  the  nature  of  their  relations,  and  cannot  be 
obliterated  except  by  such  a  definition  of  representation  as  dwarfs  it 
to  the  measure  of  elected  delegation. 

Dr.  Vinton,  however,  following  Judge  Hoffman,  as  is  usual  with 
him,  and  agreeing  in  this  instance  with  Dr.  Hawks,  as  is  remarkably 
unusual,  holds  that  the  virlute  officii  principle  excludes  the  idea  of 
representation.  The  intelligent  reader  will,  of  course,  judge  for 
himself.  Should  he,  however,  concur  with  this  view  of  these  learned 
men,  he  will  at  the  same  time  gratify  the  present  writer  by  assent- 
ing to  the  removal  of  the  very  slight  flaw  in  the  perfection  of  his 
parallel  of  development. 


THE    CIVIL  ANALOGY.  255 

that  the  analogy  affords  a  remarkable  testimony  to  the 
substantial  agreement  between  the  ideas  which  underlie 
the  system  of  Catholic  Episcopacy  and  the  system  of 
national  unity  of  independent  States  with  which  it  has 
been  here  associated. 


256  ECCLESIASTICAL   POLITY. 


PROPOSITION   XXIII. 

The  Church  Representative,  in  the  American  system  here 
considered,  exists  in  Dioceses  which  are  combined  in  a 
Federative  Union  involving  unity  of  authority  over  the 
individual  members  of  its  component  parts  and  depend- 
encies. 

THE  Federal  Union  in  this  ecclesiastical  system  has 
been  already  explained,  sufficiently,  at  least,  for  the 
understanding  of  the  sense  in  which  the  term  is  used  ; 
and  it  has  been  shown  not  only  to  be  conformable  to  the 
civil  analogy  in  its  essential  qualities  and  many  remark- 
able particulars,  but  also  to  have  its  foundations  deeply 
laid  in  the  principles  of  the  Apostolic  office,  and  thus  to 
be,  in  principle,  conformable  to  the  will  of  the  Divine 
Founder. 

It  is  now  important  to  consider  somewhat  more  partic- 
ularly, and  in  conclusion,  three  principles  which  are  essen- 
tial to  the  understanding  of  the  system  ;  and  which, 
although  they  have  already  been  implied  or  expressly 
stated,  it  is  necessary,  for  the  sake  of  clearness,  dis- 
tinctly to  emphasize. 

(i)  The  component  parts  of  this  Federal  Union  or 
Church  Representative  are  the  Dioceses. 

It  may  be  worth  while  to  show  here,  for  the  satisfac- 
tion of  those  to  whom  this  language  may  be  unfamiliar, 
that  it  is  not,  as  they  may  suppose,  either  new  in  itself 
or  expressive  of  new  ideas.  The  process  of  time  and 
events  has  accustomed  the  Churchmen  of  the  present 
day  to  a  somewhat  different  terminology,  which  has  led, 
as  is  often  the  case  in  other  matters,  to  seriously  differ- 


THE    UNITY  OF  AUTHORITY.  257 

ent  conceptions  of  the  nature  of  the  thing  described. 
But,  so  far  from  being  a  fond  thing  now  vainly  invented, 
the  idea  that  the  Dioceses  are  the  component  parts  of  the 
system  described  has  certainly  the  sanction  of  very  ven- 
erable authority,  and  authority  which  is  associated  with 
the  beginning  of  its  organization. 

The  interest  manifested,  in  the  very  early  days  of  the 
system,  in  the  case  of  those  members  of  the  Church  who 
dwelt  in  remote  parts  of  the  country,  has  already  been 
noted.  In  the  General  Convention  of  1814,  Bishop 
White,  then  the  Presiding  Bishop,  calls  attention  to  the 
fact  that  in  i8ri  it  had  been  devolved  upon  him,  in 
connection  with  Bishop  Madison,  of  Virginia,  "  to  devise 
means  for  supplying  the  congregations  of  this  Church 
west  of  the  Allegheny  Mountains  with  the  ministration 
and  worship  of  the  same,  and  for  organizing  the  Church 
in  the  Western  States."  In  consequence  of  this  the  Pres- 
ident had  begun  a  correspondence  with  Bishop  Madison, 
but  all  further  progress  was  arrested  by  the  decease  of 
the  said  Right  Reverend  Brother.  ''This  did  not  hinder 
the  President  from  submitting  to  the  Convention  of  this 
Church  in  Pennsylvania  a  proposal,  which  was  complied 
with,  designed  so  far  to  meet  the  desires  of  some  mem- 
bers of  this  Church  in  the  Western  country,  as  that  in 
the  event  of  a  settlement  of  a  Bishop  therein,  the  congre- 
gations in  the  western  counties  of  the  State  might  be 
under  his  superintendence  ;  on  such  a  plan  as  would  not 
affect  the  integrity  of  the  Church,  in  the  State  of  Penn- 
sylvania, as  a  component  member  of  the  body  of  this 
Church  throughout  our  Union,  in  contrariety  to  the 
Constitution." 

What  exactly  was  the  nature  of  the  plan  proposed,  the 
venerable  President  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  state  ; 
17 


258  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

but  it  is  obvious,  from  his  account  of  the  course  which 
he  had  pursued,  that  the  Church  in  the  State  of  Penn- 
sylvania was  regarded  as  a  component  member  of  the 
body  of  this  Church  throughout  the  Union— that  is,  a 
component  member  of  the  Church  conterminous  with 
the  Civil  Union,  or  designed  so  to  be  ;  and  that  a  meas- 
ure which  should  affect  the  integrity  of  that  component 
part  would  be  contrary  to  the  Ecclesiastical  Constitution. 
In  other  words,  the  Church  in  the  State  as  a  whole  had 
a  relation  to  the  Ecclesiastical  Union  under  the  Consti- 
tution which  no  superintendence  of  any  other  Bishop 
than  the  Bishop  of  this  Church  in  that  State  should  be 
allowed  to  affect.* 

The  equivalence  of  the  Diocese,  in  the  existing  system, 
to  the  Church  in  the  State  in  the  system  as  at  first  organ- 
ized has  been  noted,  and  enough  has  been  said  in  regard 
to  the  historical  evidence  that  the  Church  in  the  State  is 
a  component  member  or  constituent  part  of  what  Bishop 
White  calls  the  body  of  this  Church  throughout  our 
Union — that  is,  the  Church  Representative  organized 
under  the  Constitution. 

It  is  now  to  be  noted  that,  according  to  the  terms  of 
this  Constitution,  the  Dioceses  are  the  only  component 
parts  recognized  ;  from  which  it  will  follow  that  the 
members  of  the  Church  in  groups  or  districts  not  organ- 
ized into  Dioceses,  and  acceding  in  such  organization  to 
the  Constitution,  are  not  component  parts  of  the  Church 
Representative  under  this  system,  but  are  dependencies 
upon  it. 

The  following  citations  are  made  from  the  existing 
Constitution,  because  in  that  the  word  Diocese  is  used. 


*  Bioren's  "Journals,"  pp.  311-312. 


THE    UNITY  OF  AUTHORITY.  259 

The  provisions,  unless  otherwise  noted,  are  precisely  the 
same  in  the  Constitution  of  1789,  except  that  the  Diocese 
is  designated  as  the  Church  in  the  State. 

Article  i.  "  This  Church,  in  a  majority  of  the  Dioceses 
which  shall  have  adopted  this  Constitution,  shall  be  repre- 
sented, before  they  shall  proceed  to  business." 

Article  2.  "  The  Church  in  each  Diocese  shall  be  en- 
titled to  a  representation.  ...  If  the  Convention  of 
any  Diocese  should  neglect  or  decline  to  appoint  clerical 
.  .  .  or  lay  Deputies,  or  if  any  of  those  .  .  . 
appointed  should  neglect  to  attend,  or  be  prevented 
.  .  .  such  Diocese  shall  nevertheless  be  considered 
as  duly  represented  by  such  Deputy  ...  as  may 
attend.  And  if  through  the  neglect  of  the  Convention 
of  any  of  the  Churches  which  shall  have  adopted  or 
may  hereafter  adopt  this  Constitution,  no  Deputies,  either 
lay  or  clerical,  should  attend  at  any  General  Convention, 
the  Church  in  such  Diocese  shall  nevertheless  be  bound 
by  the  acts  of  such  Convention." 

Article  3.  "The  Bishops  of  this  Church,  when  there 
shall  be  three,  or  more,  shall,  whenever  General  Conven- 
tions are  held,  form  a  separate  House." 

Article  4.  "  The  Bishop  or  Bishops  in  every  Diocese 
shall  be  chosen  agreeably  to  such  rules  as  shall  be  fixed 
by  the  Convention  of  that  Diocese." 

Article  5.  "  A  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  any  of 
the  United  States,  or  any  Territory  thereof,  not  now  rep- 
resented, may,  at  any  time  hereafter,  be  admitted  on 
acceding  to  this  Constitution  :  and  a  new  Diocese,  to  be 
formed  from  one  or  more  existing  Dioceses,  may  be 
admitted  " — under  certain  restrictions. 

Here  the  possibility  of  a  Church  in  a  Territory,  as  well 
as  in  a  State,  being  represented  is  recognized.  This 


260  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

clause  was  not  in  the  Constitution  of  1789,  but  was  added 
in  1838,  so  as  to  cover  cases  where  organization  in  the 
Church  as  a  Diocese  might,  as  in  some  cases  has  hap- 
pened, precede  the  civil  organization  necessary  to  con- 
stitute the  district  a  State.  But  the  possibility  thus  rec- 
ognized is  that  of  a  Church  so  organized  as  to  be  capable 
of  acceding  to  the  Constitution,  and  of  admission  and 
representation  under  it. 

Article  9.  "  This  Constitution  shall  be  unalterable  un- 
less in  General  Convention,  by  the  Church,  in  a  majority 
of  the  Dioceses  which  may  have  adopted  the  same." 

These  citations  demonstrate  that  the  Diocese  is,  under 
the  Constitution,  the  constituency  or  component  part  of 
the  representative  system.  It  is  the  Church  in  the 
Diocese  which  is  represented  in  the  House  of  Deputies  ; 
and  it  is  the  Bishops  of  this  Church  so  represented,  who 
compose,  under  the  Constitution,  the  House  of  Bishops. 

It  is,  furthermore,  the  Church  in  a  majority  of  the  Dio- 
ceses which  may  have  adopted  the  Constitution,  to  which 
alone  belongs  the  power  of  altering  the  Constitution. 
The  power  must  be  exercised  in  the  General  Convention 
and  not  otherwise,  but  it  belongs  to  the  Church  in  the 
Dioceses  to  make,  in  the  use  of  that  means,  such  altera- 
tion ;  and  there  is  no  other  power  by  which  constitution- 
ally it  can  be  effected.  The  Bishops,  clergy,  and  laity, 
acting  in  General  Convention,  or  out  of  it,  are  not,  as 
such,  competent  to  this  alteration  :  because,  whether  act- 
ing en  masse,  by  the  numerical  majority  of  their  whole 
number ;  or  by  the  concurrence  of  the  two  Houses  under 
the  provision  for  legislation  contained  in  Article  2,  nei- 
ther action  would  necessarily  involve  the  consent  of  the 
Church  in  a  majority  of  the  Dioceses.  Without  the  con- 
sent, in  General  Convention,  of  the  Church  in  a  majority 


THE    UNITY  OF  AUTHORITY.  261 

of  the  Dioceses  which  may  have  adopted  the  Constitu- 
tion, that  Constitution  cannot  constitutionally  be  altered. 
And  if  it  be  urged  that  this  conclusion  would  require 
also  the  consent  of  the  Bishops  of  those  Dioceses  which 
constitute  the  majority  in  the  action  taken  in  the  Lower 
House,  that  does  not  prove  the  conclusion  to  be  wrong. 
When  the  Constitution  containing  this  article,  the  same 
as  now,  was  adopted  in  October,  1789,  it  was  signed  not 
only  by  the  representatives  of  the  Dioceses  in  the  Lower 
House,  but  also  by  two  out  of  the  three  Bishops  then  in 
the  country.  Whence  arose  the  presumption  that  the 
Bishops  of  the  Dioceses  had  no  voice,  as  such,  in  the  con- 
sent of  those  Dioceses  to  the  alteration  of  the  Constitu- 
tion ?  Certainly  there  is  no  reason  why  the  Bishops 
should  not  have  a  voice  in  the  action  of  their  Dioceses  in 
General  Convention,  when  the  action  called  for  is,  as  in 
this  case,  distinctly  Diocesan  action.  That  such  action 
was  not  expressly  required  in  concurrence  with  the 
action  of  elected  representatives,  is  probably  due  only  to 
the  fact  that  the  scheme  of  the  Constitution  was  com- 
pleted in  the  conception  of  a  representative  body  of 
clergy  and  laity,  without  strict  regard  to,  or  understand- 
ing of,  the  proper  functions  of  Bishops,  and  that  their 
connection  with  the  system  of  the  General  Convention 
was  not  yet  fully  worked  out.  But  as  several  miscon- 
ceptions in  this  respect  have  been  removed  in  the  lapse 
of  time,  there  is  no  reason  why  in  due  time  this  should 
not  be  removed  also  ;  in  which  event  the  provision  of 
the  Constitution  as  to  its  own  alteration  will  be  strictly 
carried  out ;  instead  of  being,  practically  and  in  effect, 
accomplished  by  the  concurrence  of  the  majority  of  the 
House  of  Bishops  with  the  majority  of  the  Dioceses  as 
represented  in  the  Lower  House. 


262  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

The  Church  existing  in  the  missionary  jurisdictions 
does  not  exist  in  the  form  of  Dioceses  as  that  term  is 
used  and  understood  in  the  Constitution.  It  is  not 
organized  in  Convention  with  a  Bishop  of  its  own  choice. 
It  has  not  acceded  to  the  Constitution.  It  is  not  consti- 
tutionally entitled  to  representation,  and  is  in  no  respect 
a  properly  component  part  of  the  Church  Representative, 
but  is  simply  a  dependency  of  that  Church  ;  a  nursery, 
so  to  speak,  for  the  training  and  development  of  future 
constituent  members.  That  it  has,  in  any  respect,  a 
representation  in  the  supreme  legislature  of  the  common 
government,  has  been  shown  to  be  traceable  not  to  the 
Constitution,  but  to  canonical  provisions  of  the  General 
Convention  out  of  harmony  with  that  Constitution,  and 
resulting  either  from  want  of  attention  to  the  essential 
distinction  between  legislative  acts  and  the  organic  law 
by  which  the  legislature  itself  is  bound  ;  or  from  that 
persuasion  entertained  by  many  of  the  representatives 
of  the  Church,  that  the  General  Convention  is  the 
Church  itself,  and  as  such  has  at  least  as  much  power  as 
the  Parliament  of  Great  Britain,  whose  only  limit  is  the 
transmutation  of  sex.  Such  representation  is  at  any 
rate  an  anomaly— one  of  those  exceptional  features 
which  may  be  found  in  almost  every  system  of  govern- 
ment, and  which  are  generally  traceable  to  the  opera- 
tion of  some  special  interest  or  influence,  but  which  are 
none  the  less  exceptions  and  anomalies  not  to  be  taken 
into  account  in  ascertaining  the  true  character  of  the 
system  upon  which  it  is  an  accretion. 

(2)  The  union  of  these  component  parts  constituting 
the  Church  Representative  in  this  system  is,  in  its  associ- 
ation, a  distinct  being — a  proper  moral  entity,  capable  of 
recognition,  distinction,  and  operation. 


THE   UNITY  OF  AUTHORITY.  263 

As  has  already  been  observed,  the  federal  union  of 
Dioceses  is  essentially  characteristic  of  this  system,  and 
yet  it  is  more  than  a  federation.  The  union  is  the  basis 
and  origin  of  the  system,  but  by  virtue  of  it  the  commu- 
nity comes  into  existence  ;  so  that  there  is  a  distinct 
being  constituted — legally,  socially,  politically  a  distinct 
creation.  Nothing  seems  better  to  describe  it  than  the 
term  moral  entity.  It  is  capable  of  recognition  by  its 
essential  and  constitutional  characteristics.  It  is  capable 
of  distinction,  being  a  different  thing  from  the  Church 
existing  under  any  other  form  of  representative  being, 
and  as  such  is  capable  of  name  and  attributes.  It  is 
properly  the  Church  Representative  formed  by  the  Ec- 
clesiastical Union  of  the  Church  Catholic  and  Visible  in 
the  Dioceses  which  are  its  integral  parts.  It  may  be 
designated  by  any  name  which  in  its  corporate  action  it 
may  bestow  upon  itself.  It  is,  in  fact,  called  the  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  Church,  and  this  Church  for  brevity. 
Whatever  it  may  be  convenient  to  call  it,  it  exists  in  this 
or  that  Diocese,  not  as  a  substitute  for  the  Catholic 
Church  of  Christ's  foundation  and  Apostolic  organiza- 
tion, but  as  the  mode  or  means  by  which  that  Church 
operates  in  the  state  or  condition  of  association,  As  so 
existing,  it  has  properly  a  constitution,  or  organic  law,  by 
which  it  operates,  and  "  in  contrariety  "  to  which  it  has 
no  lawful  power. 

It  has  been  much  disputed  whether  this  Constitution 
is  the  Constitution  of  the  Church  or  the  Constitution  of 
General  Convention.  Properly  speaking,  it  is  neither. 
The  dispute  would  settle  itself  if  it  could  be  understood 
that  the  Church  in  the  Dioceses  has  an  existence  or  being 
as  associated.  The  Constitution  is  the  Constitution  of 
the  Church  so  associated,  the  Constitution  of  the  asso- 


264  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

ciation  or  the  community  which  comes  politically  into 
existence  by  virtue  of  the  union  ;  and,  as  such,  this  Con- 
stitution regulates  the  powers  of  its  supreme  legislature, 
the  General  Convention,  and  constrains,  limits,  and 
obliges  the  Church  in  the  Dioceses  which  have  acceded 
to  it.  It  is  the  organic  law  of  the  association,  by  which 
both  the  law-making  power  of  the  body,  and  its  com- 
ponent parts,  are  bound. 

(3)  The  common  government  of  this  association  has 
direct  and  immediate  authority  over  the  individual  mem- 
bers of  its  component  parts  and  dependencies. 

This  authority  results  from  those  provisions  of  the 
Constitution  whereby  the  acts  of  the  General  Convention, 
constitutionally  performed,  are  made  obligatory  upon  the 
Church  in  each  Diocese,  whether  the  consent  of  such 
Church  has  in  any  particular  instance  been  given  or  not 
(Art.  2) ;  and  whereby  such  acts  so  performed  are  de- 
clared to  have  the  operation  of  law  (Art.  3). 

In  the  exercise  of  this  authority  the  General  Conven- 
tion acts,  of  course,  under  the  limitations  imposed  by  the 
Constitution  ;  and  although  its  powers,  as  we  have  seen, 
are  not  specifically  and  in  detail  enumerated  in  that 
instrument,  yet  it  is  plain  from  its  provisions  that  the 
General  Convention  is  endowed  with  a  supremacy  of 
legislative  power,  subject  to  such  limitations  as  are  by 
the  common  consent  of  the  constituent  parts  of  the 
associated  body  incorporated  into  its  Constitution. 
Under  these  limitations  the  General  Convention  appears 
to  possess  power  to  pass  laws  on  any  subject  as  to  which 
a  National  Church  is  free  to  legislate  for  its  members. 
It  can  pass  any  law  which  the  Dioceses  together  or 
separately  might  pass  for  themselves,  supposing  them  to 
be  able  to  act  together  or  separately.  They  do,  indeed, 


THE    UNITY  OF  AUTHORITY.  265 

act  together  in  all  acts  which  the  General  Convention 
performs,  under  the  Constitution  and  not  contrary  to  the 
limitations  which  that  instrument  imposes.  It  acts  for 
them  ;  they  act  through  it.  When  such  action  takes 
place,  it  is  of  superior  obligation  to  the  act  of  the  Church 
in  any  Diocese.  In  respect  to  matters  as  to  which  there 
has  been  no  such  common  action — that  is,  no  action 
covered  by  the  common  consent  of  the  Dioceses  to  the 
Constitution,  or  by  constitutional  legislation — the  indi- 
vidual Diocese  is  free  to  act  for  itself  in  its  own  concerns. 
And  what  one  Diocese  may  do  for  itself,  two  or  more 
Dioceses  may  do  for  themselves,  in  regard  to  matters  of 
joint  interest,  subject  always  to  the  paramount  authority 
of  the  General  Convention,  acting,  as  before  said,  under 
the  Constitution  and  within  constitutional  limits.  The 
ability  to  pass  laws  obligatory  upon  all  the  Dioceses,  and 
irrespective  of  the  consent  of  individual  Dioceses,  result- 
ing from  the  assent  of  all  the  Dioceses  to  the  Constitu- 
tion, is  a  check  upon  the  power  of  individual  Dioceses. 
The  safety  of  the  individual  Diocese  from  overbearing 
action  on  the  part  of  the  General  Convention  lies  in  the 
principles  of  limitation  embodied  in  the  Constitution  and 
in  the  moral  force  of  a  properly  educated  public  opinion 
in  the  Church.*  To  say  that  these  principles  are  not 
liable  to  be  misapplied  or  perverted,  or  that  there  is  no 
possibility  of  conflict  of  jurisdictions  and  confusion  of 
obligations,  or  of  misunderstanding  and  abuses,  would 
be  to  say  not  only  that  the  system  was  more  than  human, 
but  also  that  it  was  more  than  divine.  There  is  nothing 
that  God  or  man  has  devised  or  created  for  human 
benefit  that  the  heedlessness,  the  malice,  or  the  stupidity 


*  Cf.  "Church  Cyclopaedia,"  title  General  Convention. 


266  ECCLESIASTICAL  POLITY. 

of  man  cannot  mar.  But,  all  things  considered,  the 
system  furnishes  as  solid  a  bulwark  against  the  over- 
flowing tide  of  these  human  tendencies  as  can  well  be 
conceived. 

And,  although  it  might  savor  too  much  of  a  truly 
American  humility  to  say  that  it  is  better  than  any  sys- 
tem which  has  ever  thus  far  been  conceived,  yet  it  may 
justly  be  affirmed  that  what  it  needs  for  its  own  improve- 
ment is  simply  the  right  understanding  and  honest  de- 
velopment of  those  elements  of  sound  principle  which 
it  contains  within  itself,  which  it  has  derived  from  the 
providential  influence  upon  it  of  entirely  distinct  and 
apparently  opposing  ideas,  and  in  the  use  of  which  it  has 
already  done  laudable  service  in  the  fulfilment  of  its 
most  noble  mission  to  harmonize  the  claims  of  the  au- 
thority of  the  Church  with  the  rights  of  constitutional 
liberty. 

The  possession  of  this  direct  and  immediate  power  of 
the  common  government  of  a  federal  union  over  the 
individual  members  of  its  constituent  parts  is  that  which 
properly  distinguishes  such  association  from  a  mere  con- 
federation or  league,  in  which  the  common  government 
acts  directly  and  immediately  only  upon  the  members  of 
the  league  or  federation,  and  indirectly  and  mediately 
through  them  upon  the  individuals  comprised  within 
them. 

There  is  no  more  central  thought  than  this  in  the 
understanding  either  of  this  ecclesiastical  system  or  of 
the  civil  system  within  which  it  is  established  ;  and  the 
due  appreciation  of  it  makes  clear  the  relation  of  the 
constituent  parts  to  each  other,  and  to  the  common  gov- 
ernment, and  relieves  the  system  from  any  just  imputa- 
tion of  weakness  or  inherent  tendency  to  disintegration. 


THE    UNITY  OF  AUTHORITY.  267 

Authority  without  limitation  or  restraint  is  despotism  ; 
unrestrained  liberty  to  obstruct  and  reject  authority  is 
anarchy.  But  supreme  authority  over  the  individual 
members  of  a  community,  exercised  under  the  restraints 
and  limitations  imposed  by  a  Constitution,  unalterable  at 
the  will  of  the  governing  body,  and  only  upon  the  con- 
sent of  those  component  parts  of  the  community  by 
which  it  has  been  established,  is  a  possession  which 
endows  the  system  which  is  so  happy  as  to  enjoy  it, 
with  qualities  at  once  the  most  efficacious  and  lasting, 
and  the  most  endearing  to  the  patriotic  heart. 

And  as,  by  the  singular  care  and  blessing  of  Almighty 
God,  this  beneficent  characteristic  is  shared  alike  by  the 
ecclesiastical  system  which  we  have  been  considering 
and  by  the  civil  system  to  which  it  is  so  near  akin,  it  is 
neither  unnatural  nor  unbecoming  that  each  should  be, 
to  those  who  share  the  benefits  of  both,  the  object  of  a 
loyal  and  reverent  regard. 


APPENDIX   A. 

ABSTRACT  FROM   PUFFENDORF'S   ESSAY  REFERRED  TO  UNDER 
PROPOSITION   I. 

Entities,  according  to  this  author,  are  either  Natural  or 
Moral. 

Natural  Entities  are  beings  created,  which  have  certain 
natural  or  inherent  qualities,  and  operate  (i)  without  reflec- 
tion, e.g.,  plants  ;  (2)  with  imperfect  reflection,  e.g.,  brutes ; 
(3)  by  peculiar  light  of  understanding,  e.g.,  man. 

Moral  Entities  are  beings,  or  states  of  being,  imposed  after 
creation  by  superior  understanding,  chiefly  for  the  regulation 
of  the  human  will  ;  originally  by  God,  in  part  also  by  man. 
These  are  (I.)  framed  with  analogy  to  substance,  and  called 
moral  persons  ;  or  (II.)  really  and  formally  modes. 

I.  Moral  Persons  are  (i)  simple  or  (2)  compound. 

1.  Simple  moral  persons  are  (A)  public  or  (B}  private. 

(A)  Public  are  (a)  civil,  e.g.,  governor ;  or  (b)  ecclesiastical, 
e.g.,  bishop. 

(B)  Private,  according  to  position,  e.g.,  merchant,  mechanic, 
etc. 

2.  Compound  moral  persons,  where  several  individuals  are 
so  united  as  to  have  one  will,  are  (A}  public  or  (B~)  private. 

(A)  Public  are  either  (a)  civil  or  (b}  sacred. 

(a)  Civil  are  either  general,  e.g.,  states  or  kingdoms ;  or 
peculiar,  e.g.,  parliaments. 

(b)  Sacred  are  also  either  general,  e.g.,  Church  Catholic,  or 
particular  churches  ;  or  peculiar,  e.g.,  synods  or  councils. 

(B)  Private,  e.g.,  colleges,  corporate  bodies  which  are  per- 
sons in  the  eye  of  the  law,  and  are  civil  or  sacred,  according 
to  their  object. 


270  APPENDIX  A. 

II.  Moral  Entities,  which  are  really  and  formally  modes,  are 
(i)  either  modes  of  estimation,  as  a  person  or  thing  is  rated 
or  valued,  called  also  quantities  ;  or  (2)  modes  of  affection, 
as  one  is  affected  in  such  and  such  a  way,  called  also 
qualities. 

Modes  of  affection  are  (i)  formal,  called  also  attributes,^., 
a  title  ;  (2)  operative,  qualities  which  work  tending  to  pro- 
duce certain  effects. 

2.  Operative  are  those  of  (A)  power,  (B~)  right,  (C)  obliga- 
tion. 

(A)  Power,  ability  to  act  with  a  moral  effect  over  (#)  our- 
selves— liberty  ;  (b)  our  own  things — property  ;  (c)  persons  of 
others— empire    or    command ;    (d]   things    of   others,   e.g., 
hiring. 

(B)  Right,  moral  quality  by  which  we  justly  obtain  govern- 
ment or  possession,  being  either  («)  active,  as  by  virtue  of  it 
we  acquire  from  others  ;  or  (b)  passive,  as  we  may  lawfully 
receive  from  others — involving  (a)  no  obligation  to  bestow, 
e.g.,  a  gift ;  (ff)  moral  obligation  to  bestow,  called   right  of 
desert ;  (y]  right  to  exact. 

(C)  Obligation,  by  which  a  man  is  placed  under  a  moral 
necessity  to  perform  anything. 


APPENDIX  B.  271 


APPENDIX   B. 

FUNDAMENTAL   PRINCIPLES   AND   DRAFT   CONSTITUTION  OF 

1785. 

Extract  from  Bishop  White  s  Statement  prefixed  to  Bioren's 
Reprint  of  General  Convention  Journals. 

"  In  pursuance  of  preceding  correspondence,  there  assem- 
bled some  of  the  Clergy  of  New  York,  of  New  Jersey,  and 
of  Pennsylvania,  in  the  city  of  New  Brunswick,  New  Jersey,  in 
May,  1784:  And  there  being  a  few  respectable  Lay  members 
of  the  Church  attending  on  public  business  in  the  same  city, 
their  presence  was  desired.  The  immediate  object  of  the 
meeting,  was  the  revival  of  a  charitable  corporation,  which 
had  existed  before  the  Revolution  ;  clothed  with  corporate 
powers,  under  the  government  of  each  of  the  said  three  Prov- 
inces. The  opportunity  was  improved  by  the  Clergy  from 
Pennsylvania,  of  communicating  certain  measures  recently 
adopted  in  that  State,  tending  to  the  organizing  of  the  Church 
throughout  the  Union.  The  result  was,  the  inviting  of  a  more 
general  meeting  in  the  ensuing  October,  at  the  City  of  New 
York  :  that  being  the  time  and  place,  wherein,  according  to 
the  charter  of  the  above  mentioned  corporation,  their  next 
meeting  should  be  held.  It  was  accordingly  held,  for  the 
revival  of  the  corporation  :  And  there  appeared  Deputies,  not 
only  from  the  said  three  States,  but  also  from  others  ;  with  the 
view  of  consulting  on  the  existing  exigency  of  the  Church.  The 
greater  number  of  these  Deputies,  were  not  vested  with  powers 
for  the  binding  of  their  constituents  :  And  therefore,  although 
they  called  themselves  a  Convention,  in  the  lax  sense  in  which 
the  word  had  been  before  used,  yet  they  were  not  an  organ- 
ized body.  They  did  not  consider  themselves  as  such  :  And 
their  only  act,  was  the  issuing  of  a  recommendation  to  the 
Churches  in  the  several  States,  to  unite  under  a  few  articles 
to  be  considered  as  fundamental.  These  are  the  articles 


272  APPENDIX  B. 

referred  to,  but  not  printed  in  the  first  Journal  ;  and     . 
are  as  follow  : 

"I.  That  there  shall  be  a  general  convention  of  the  Episco- 
pal Church  in  the  United  States  of  America. 

"  2.  That  the  Episcopal  Church  in  each  state,  send  deputies 
to  the  convention,  consisting  of  clergy  and  laity. 

"  3.  That  associated  congregations,  in  two  or  more  states, 
may  send  deputies  jointly. 

"  4.  That  the  said  Church  shall  maintain  the  doctrines  of  the 
Gospel,  as  now  held  by  the  Church  of  England  ;  and  shall 
adhere  to  the  liturgy  of  the  said  church,  as  far  as  shall  be 
consistent  with  the  American  revolution,  and  the  constitutions 
of  the  respective  states. 

"  5.  That  in  every  state,  where  there  shall  be  a  Bishop  duly 
consecrated  and  settled,  he  shall  be  considered  as  a  member 
of  the  convention  ex  officio. 

"  6.  That  the  clergy  and  laity,  assembled  in  convention,  shall 
deliberate  in  one  body,  but  shall  vote  separately  :  and  the 
concurrence  of  both  shall  be  necessary  to  give  validity  to 
every  measure. 

"  7.  That  the  first  meeting  of  the  convention  shall  be  at 
Philadelphia,  the  Tuesday  before  the  feast  of  St.  Michael  next ; 
to  which  it  is  hoped  and  earnestly  desired,  that  the  Episcopal 
Churches  in  the  respective  states  will  send  their  clerical  and 
lay  deputies  ;  duly  instructed  and  authorized  to  proceed  on 
the  necessary  business,  herein  proposed  for  their  delibera- 
tion."— Preface  to  Karen's  "  Journals" 

Extract  from  Journal  of  1785  (Bioren,  p.  8),  Tuesday,  4th  of 
October. 

"  A  General  Ecclesiastical  Constitution  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America. 

"WHEREAS,  in  the  course  of  Divine  Providence,  the  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  is 
become  independent  of  all  foreign  authority,  civil  and  ecclesi- 
astical : 


APPENDIX  B.  273 

"  And  whereas,  at  a  meeting  of  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies 
of  the  said  Church  in  sundry  of  the  said  states,  viz.  in  the 
states  of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  New  York, 
New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  and  Maryland,  held  in 
the  City  of  New  York,  on  the  6th  and  7th  days  of  October, 
in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1784,  it  was  recommended  to  this 
Church  in  the  said  states  represented  as  aforesaid,  and  pro- 
posed to  this  Church  in  the  states  not  represented,  that  they 
should  send  Deputies  to  a  Convention  to  be  held  in  the  city  of 
Philadelphia  on  the  Tuesday  before  the  feast  of  St.  Michael 
in  this  present  year,  in  order  to  unite  in  a  Constitution  of 
Ecclesiastical  government,  agreeably  to  certain  fundamental 
principles,  expressed  in  the  said  recommendation  and  pro- 
posal : 

"  And  whereas,  in  consequence  of  the  said  recommendation 
and  proposal,  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  have  been  duly 
appointed  from  the  said  Church  in  the  states  of  New  York, 
New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia, 
and  South  Carolina  : 

"The  said  Deputies  being  now  assembled,  and  taking  into 
consideration  the  importance  of  maintaining  uniformity  in 
doctrine,  discipline  and  worship  in  the  said  Church,  do  hereby 
determine  and  declare, 

"  I.  That  there  shall  be  a  General  Convention  of  the  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
which  shall  be  held  in  the  City  of  Philadelphia  on  the  third 
Tuesday  in  June,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1786,  and  for  ever 
after  once  in  three  years,  on  the  third  Tuesday  of  June,  in 
such  place  as  shall  be  determined  by  the  Convention  ;  and 
special  meetings  may  be  held  at  such  other  times  and  in  such 
place  as  shall  be  hereafter  provided  for  ;  and  this  Church,  in 
a  majority  of  the  states  aforesaid,  shall  be  represented  before 
they  shall  proceed  to  business;  except  that  the  representation  of 
this  Church  from  two  states  shall  be  sufficient  to  adjourn  ;  and 
in  all  business  of  the  Convention  freedom  of  debate  shall  be 
allowed. 

"  II.  There  shall  be  a  representation  of  both  Clergy  and 
18 


274  APPENDIX  B. 

Laity  of  the  Church  in  each  state,  which  shall  consist  of  one  or 
more  Deputies,  not  exceeding  four,  of  each  order  ;  and  in  all 
questions,  the  said  Church  in  each  state  shall  have  one  vote  ; 
and  a  majority  of  suffrages  shall  be  conclusive. 

"III.  In  the  said  Church  in  every  state  represented  in  this 
Convention,  there  shall  be  a  Convention  consisting  of  the 
Clergy  and  Lay  Deputies  of  the  congregation. 

"  IV.  '  The  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  Administration  of 
the  Sacraments,  and  other  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  the  Church, 
according  to  the  use  of  the  Church  of  England,'  shall  be  con- 
tinued to  be  used  by  this  Church,  as  the  same  is  altered  by 
this  Convention,  in  a  certain  instrument  of  writing  passed  by 
their  authority,  entituled  '  Alterations  of  the  Liturgy  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
in  order  to  render  the  same  conformable  to  the  American 
Revolution  and  the  constitutions  of  the  respective  states.' 

"  V.  In  every  state  where  there  shall  be  a  Bishop  duly 
consecrated  and  settled,  and  who  shall  have  acceded  to  the 
articles  of  this  General  Ecclesiastical  Constitution,  he  shall  be 
considered  as  a  member  of  the  Convention  ex  officio. 

"VI.  The  Bishop  or  Bishops  in  every  state  shall  be  chosen 
agreeably  to  such  rules  as  shall  be  fixed  by  the  respective 
conventions  ;  and  every  Bishop  of  this  Church  shall  confine 
the  exercise  of  his  Episcopal  office  to  his  proper  jurisdiction  ; 
unless  requested  to  ordain  or  confirm  by  any  Church  destitute 
of  a  Bishop. 

"  VII.  A  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  any  of  the  United 
States  not  now  represented,  may  at  any  time  hereafter  be 
admitted,  on  acceding  to  the  articles  of  this  union. 

"VIII.  Every  Clergyman,  whether  Bishop,  or  Presbyter,  or 
Deacon,  shall  be  amenable  to  the  authority  of  the  Convention 
in  the  state  to  which  he  belongs,  so  far  as  relates  to  suspen- 
sion or  removal  from  office  ;  and  the  Convention  in  each  state 
shall  institute  rules  for  their  conduct,  and  an  equitable  mode 
of  trial. 

"  IX.  And  whereas  it  is  represented  to  this  Convention  to 
be  the  desire  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  these 


APPENDIX  B.  275 

states,  that  there  may  be  further  alterations  of  the  Liturgy 
than  such  as  are  made  necessary  by  the  American  revolu- 
tion ;  therefore  the  '  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  Adminis- 
tration of  the  Sacraments,  and  other  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of 
the  Church,  according  to  the  use  of  the  Church  of  England,' 
as  altered  by  an  instrument  of  writing,  passed  under  the 
authority  of  this  Convention,  entituled  '  Alterations  in  the  Book 
of  Common  Prayer,  and  Administration  of  the  Sacraments 
and  other  rites  and  Ceremonies  of  the  Church,  according  to 
the  use  of  the  Church  of  England,  proposed  and  recommended 
to  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America,"  shall  be  used  in  this  Church,  when  the  same  shall 
have  been  ratified  by  the  Conventions  which  have  respectively 
sent  Deputies  to  this  General  Convention. 

"  X.  No  person  shall  be  ordained  or  permitted  to  officiate  as 
a  Minister  in  this  Church,  until  he  shall  have  subscribed  the 
following  declaration  :  '  I  do  believe  the  Holy  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testament  to  be  the  Word  of  God,  and  to 
contain  all  things  necessary  to  salvation  ;  and  I  do  solemnly 
engage  to  conform  to  the  doctrines  and  worship  of  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church,  as  settled  and  determined  in  the 
Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  Administration  of  the  Sacra- 
ments, set  forth  by  the  General  Convention  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  these  United  States.' 

"  XI.  This  General  Ecclesiastical  Constitution,  when  ratified 
by  the  Church  in  the  different  states,  shall  be  considered  as 
fundamental ;  and  shall  be  unalterable  by  the  Convention  of 
the  Church  in  any  state." 


276  APPENDIX  C. 


APPENDIX   C. 

THE    SECOND    OR     AMENDED     DRAFT     CONSTITUTION,     1786. 
(BIOREN,   PP.  23-26.) 

"  A  General  Constitution  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America. 

"  WHEREAS,  in  the  course  of  divine  Providence,  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  is 
become  independent  of  all  foreign  authority,  civil  and  ecclesi- 
astical : 

"And  whereas,  at  a  meeting  of  clerical  and  lay  Deputies  of 
the  said  Church  in  sundry  of  the  said  States,  viz.  in  the  states 
of  Massachusetts,  Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,*  New  York, 
New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware  and  Maryland,  held  in  the 
city  of  New  York  on  the  6th  and  7th  days  of  October,  in  the 
year  of  our  Lord  1784,  it  was  recommended  to  this  Church  in 
the  said  States  represented  as  aforesaid,  and  proposed  to  this 
Church  in  the  States  not  represented,  that  they  should  send 
Deputies  to  a  Convention  to  be  held  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia 
on  the  Tuesday  before  the  feast  of  St.  Michael  in  the  year  of 
our  Lord,  1785,  in  order  to  unite  in  a  constitution  of  Ecclesi- 


*  "  It  is  proper  to  remark,  that  although  a  clergyman  appeared  at 
this  meeting,  on  the  part  of  the  Church  in  Connecticut,  it  is  not  to 
be  thought,  that  there  was  an  obligation  on  any  in  the  state  to  sup- 
port the  above  principles  ;  because  Mr.  Marshall  "  [the  clergyman 
indicated]  "  read  to  the  assembly  a  paper,  which  expressed  his  being 
only  empowered  to  announce,  that  the  Clergy  of  Connecticut  had  taken 
measures  for  the  obtaining  of  an  Episcopate  ;  that  until  their  design 
in  that  particular  should  be  accomplished,  they  could  do  nothing  ; 
but  that  as  soon  as  they  should  have  succeeded,  they  would  come 
forward  with  their  bishop,  for  the  doing  of  what  the  general  inter- 
ests of  the  Church  might  require." — BISHOP  WHITE'S  Memoirs, 
p.  81. 


APPENDIX  C.  277 

astical  Government  agreeably  to  certain  fundamental  princi- 
ples, expressed  in  the  said  recommendation  and  proposal. 

"  And  whereas,  in  consequence  of  the  said  recommendation 
and  proposal,  Clerical  and  Lay  Deputies  have  been  duly  ap- 
pointed from  the  said  Church  in  the  states  of  New  York, 
New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia  and 
South  Carolina  :  The  said  Deputies  being  now  assembled, 
and  taking  into  consideration  the  importance  of  maintaining 
uniformity  in  doctrine,  discipline,  and  worship  in  the  said 
Church,  do  hereby  determine  and  declare  ; 

"  I.  That  there  shall  be  a  general  Convention  of  the  Protest- 
ant Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  which 
shall  be  held  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia  on  the  third  Tuesday 
in  June,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  1786,  and  forever  after  once 
in  three  years  on  the  fourth  Tuesday  of  July,  in  such  place  as 
shall  be  determined  by  the  Convention  ;  and  special  meetings 
may  be  held  at  such  other  times,  and  in  such  place,  as  shall 
be  hereafter  provided  for  ;  and  this  Church,  in  a  majority  of 
the  states  aforesaid,  shall  be  represented  before  they  shall 
proceed  to  business  ;  except  that  the  representation  of  this 
Church  from  two  states  shall  be  sufficient  to  adjourn  ;  and  in 
all  business  of  the  Convention,  freedom  of  debate  shall  be 
allowed. 

"  II.  There  shall  be  a  representation  of  both  Clergy  and 
Laity  of  the  Church  in  each  state,  which  shall  consist  of  one  or 
more  deputies,  not  exceeding  four,  of  each  order,  chosen  by 
the  Convention  of  each  state ;  and  in  all  questions,  the  said 
Church  in  each  state  shall  have  but  one  vote  ;  and  a  majority 
of  suffrages  shall  be  conclusive. 

"  III.  In  the  said  Church  in  every  state  represented  in  this 
Convention,  there  shall  be  a  convention  consisting  of  the 
Clergy  and  Lay  Deputies  of  the  congregations. 

"IV.  'The  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  and  Administration 
of  the  Sacraments,  and  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  the  Church, 
according  to  the  use  of  the  Church  of  England,'  shall  be  con- 
tinued to  be  used  by  this  C*hurch,  as  the  same  is  altered  by 
this  Convention,  in  a  certain  instrument  of  writing  passed 


278  APPENDIX  C. 

by  their  authority,  entituled  '  Alterations  of  the  Liturgy  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
in  order  to  render  the  same  conformable  to  the  American 
revolution  and  the  constitutions  of  the  respective  states.' 

"  V.  In  every  state  where  there  shall  be  a  Bishop  duly  con- 
secrated and  settled,  and  who  shall  have  acceded  to  the  articles 
of  this  Ecclesiastical  constitution,  he  shall  be  considered  as  a 
member  of  the  General  Convention  ex  officio  ;  and  a  Bishop 
shall  always  preside  in  the  General  Convention,  if  any  of  the 
episcopal  order  be  present. 

"  VI.  The  Bishop  or  Bishops  in  every  state,  shall  be  chosen 
agreeably  to  such  rules  as  shall  be  fixed  by  the  convention  of 
that  state  :  and  every  Bishop  of  this  Church  shall  confine  the 
exercise  of  his  episcopal  office  to  his  proper  jurisdiction : 
unless  requested  to  ordain  or  confirm,  or  perform  any  other 
act  of  the  episcopal  office,  by  any  church  destitute  of  a  Bishop. 

"VII.  A  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  in  any  of  the  United 
States  not  now  represented,  may  at  any  time  hereafter  be 
admitted,  on  acceding  to  the  articles  of  this  union. 

"  VIII.  Every  Clergyman,  whether  Bishop  or  Presbyter,  or 
Deacon,  shall  be  amenable  to  the  authority  of  the  Convention 
in  the  state  to  which  he  belongs,  so  far  as  relates  to  suspension 
or  removal  from  office  ;  and  the  Convention  in  each  state 
shall  institute  rules  for  their  conduct,  and  an  equitable  mode 
of  trial.  And  at  every  trial  of  a  Bishop,  there  shall  be  one  or 
more  of  the  episcopal  order  present ;  and  none  but  a  Bishop 
shall  pronounce  sentence  of  deposition  or  degradation  from 
the  ministry  on  any  Clergyman,  whether  Bishop,  or  Presbyter, 
or  Deacon. 

"  IX.  And  whereas  it  is  represented  to  this  Convention,  to 
be  the  general  desire  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
these  states,  that  there  may  be  further  alterations  of  the  Liturgy 
than  such  as  are  made  necessary  by  the  American  revolution ; 
therefore  'The  Book  of  Common  Prayer  and  Administration 
of  the  Sacraments,  and  other  rite^  and  ceremonies,  as  revised 
and  proposed  to  the  use  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
at  a  Convention  of  the  said  Church  in  the  States  of  New  York, 


APPENDIX  C.  279 

New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware,  Maryland,  Virginia  and 
South  Carolina,'  may  be  used  by  the  Church  in  such  of  the 
states  as  have  adopted  or  may  adopt  the  same  in  their  partic- 
ular Conventions,  till  further  provision  is  made,  in  this  case, 
by  the  first  General  Convention  which  shall  assemble  with 
sufficient  power  to  ratify  a  Book  of  Common  Prayer  for  the 
Church  in  these  states. 

"  X.  No  person  shall  be  ordained,  until  due  examination  had 
by  the  Bishop  and  two  Presbyters,  and  exhibiting  testimonials 
of  his  moral  conduct  for  three  years  past,  signed  by  the  Min- 
ister and  a  majority  of  the  Vestry  of  the  church  where  he  has 
last  resided ;  or  permitted  to  officiate  as  a  Minister  in  this 
Church  until  he  has  exhibited  his  letters  of  ordination,  and 
subscribed  the  following  declaration — '  I  do  believe  the  Holy 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  to  be  the  word  of 
God,  and  to  contain  all  things  necessary  to  our  salvation : 
And  I  do  solemnly  engage  to  conform  to  the  doctrines  and 
worship  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  these  United 
States.1 

"  XI.  The  Constitution  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  of  America,  when  ratified  by  the  Church 
in  a  majority  of  the  states  assembled  in  General  Convention, 
with  sufficient  power  for  the  purpose  of  such  ratification,  shall 
be  unalterable  by  the  Convention  of  any  particular  state, 
which  hath  been  represented  at  the  time  of  such  ratification." 


280 


APPENDIX  D. 


APPENDIX    D. 

CONSTITUTION  AS  ADOPTED  IN  SESSION  OF   AUGUST  8,    1789, 
AND    IN   SESSION    OF   OCTOBER   2,    1789. 

N.  B. — The  differences  betsveen  the  Constitutions  recorded  in  the 
Journal  as  of  August  and  of  October,  1789,  are  here  to  be  observed 
by  comparison  of  parallel  columns.  Except  as  noted  in  the  right- 
hand  column,  the  Constitution  of  October  is  the  same  as  that  which 
had  been  adopted  in  August.  (Bioren,  pp.  61-63,  75-77.) 


August,  1789. 

A  General  Constitution  of 
the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  United  States 
of  America. 

Art.  i.  THERE  shall  be  a 
General  Convention  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States  of 
America,  on  the  first  Tuesday 
of  August,  in  the  year  of  our 
Lord  1792,  and  on  the  first 
Tuesday  of  August,  in 
every  third  year  afterwards 
in  such  place  as  shall  be 
determined  by  the  Conven- 
tion ;  and  special  meetings 
may  be  called  at  other  times, 
in  the  manner  hereafter  to  be 
provided  for ;  and  this  Church, 
in  a  majority  of  the  states 
which  shall  have  adopted  this 
constitution,  shall  be  repre- 
sented, before  they  shall  pro- 
ceed to  business  :  except  that 


October,  1789. 
The  Constitution  of  the  Prot- 
estant Episcopal  Church  in  the 
United  States  of  America. 


second  Tuesday  of  Septem- 
ber, in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
1792,  and  on  the  second 
Tuesday  of  September  in 
every  third  year  afterwards 


APPENDIX  D.  281 

August,  1789.  October,  1789. 

the  representation  from  two 
states  shall  be  sufficient  to 
adjourn  ;  and  in  all  business 
of  the  Convention,  freedom  of 
debate  shall  be  allowed. 

Art.  2.  The  church  in  each 
state  shall  be  entitled  to  a 
representation  of  both  the 
Clergy  and  the  Laity,  which 
representation  shall  consist  of 
one  or  more  deputies,  not  ex- 
ceeding four  of  each  order, 
chosen  by  the  Convention  of 
the  state  ;  and  in  all  questions,  and, 
when  required  by  the  Clerical, 
or  Lay  representation  from 
any  state,  each  order  shall 
have  one  vote  ;  and  the  ma- 
jority of  suffrages  by  states 
shall  be  conclusive  in  each 
order,  provided  such  majority 
comprehend  a  majority  of  the 
states  represented  in  that 
order :  The  concurrence  of 
both  orders  shall  be  neces- 
sary to  constitute  a  vote  of 
the  Convention.  If  the  Con- 
vention of  any  state  should 
neglect  or  decline  to  appoint 
clerical  deputies,  or  if  they 
should  neglect  or  decline  to 
appoint  lay  deputies,  or  if 
any  of  those  of  either  order 
appointed  should  neglect  to 
attend,  or  be  prevented  by 
sickness  or  any  other  acci- 


282 


APPENDIX  D. 


August,  1789. 

dent,  such  state  shall,  never- 
theless be  considered  as  duly 
represented  by  such  deputy 
or  deputies  as  may  attend, 
whether  lay  or  clerical.  And 
if,  through  the  neglect  of  the 
Convention  of  any  of  the 
churches  which  shall  have 
adopted,  or  may  hereafter 
adopt  this  constitution,  no 
deputies,  either  lay  or  cleri- 
cal, should  attend  at  any  gen- 
eral convention,  the  church 
in  such  state  shall  neverthe- 
less be  bound  by  the  acts  of 
such  Convention. 

Art.  3.  The  Bishops  of  this 
church,  when  there  shall  be 
three  or  more,  shall,  when- 
ever general  conventions  are 
held,  form  a  house  of  revision, 
and  when  any  proposed  act 
shall  have  passed  in  the  gen- 
eral convention,  the  same 
shall  be  transmitted  to  the 
house  of  revision,  for  their 
concurrence.  And  if  the  same 
shall  be  sent  back  to  the  Con- 
vention, with  the  negative  or 
non-concurrence  of  the  house 
of  revision,  it  shall  be  again 
considered  in  the  General 
Convention,  and  if  the  Con- 
vention shall  adhere  to  the 
said  act,  by  a  majority  of 
three-fifths  of  their  body,  it 


October,  1789. 


General  Convention  ; 


Art.  3.  The  Bishops  of  this 
church,  when  there  shall  be 
three  or  more,  shall,  when- 
ever General  Conventions  are 
held,  form  a  separate  House, 
with  a  right  to  originate  and 
propose  acts,  for  the  concur- 
rence of  the  House  of  Dep- 
uties, composed  of  Clergy  and 
Laity ;  and  when  any  pro- 
posed act  shall  have  passed 
the  House  of  Deputies,  the 
same  shall  be  transmitted  to 
the  House  of  Bishops,  who 
shall  have  a  negative  there- 
upon, unless  adhered  to  by 
four-fifths  of  the  other  House  ; 
and  all  acts  of  the  Conven- 
tion shall  be  authenticated  by 
both  Houses.  And,  in  all 


APPENDIX  D. 


283 


August,  1789. 

shall  become  a  law  to  all  in- 
tents and  purposes,  notwith- 
standing the  non-concurrence 
of  the  house  of  revision  ;  and 
all  acts  of  the  Convention 
shall  be  authenticated  by  both 
houses.  And  in  all  cases,  the 
house  of  Bishops  shall  signify 
to  the  Convention  their  appro- 
bation or  disapprobation,  the 
latter  with  their  reasons  in 
writing,  within  two  days  after 
the  proposed  act  shall  have 
been  reported  to  them  for 
concurrence,  and  in  failure 
thereof  it  shall  have  the  opera- 
tion of  a  law.  But  until 
there  shall  be  three  or  more 
Bishops,  as  aforesaid,  any 
Bishop  attending  a  General 
Convention  shall  be  a  mem- 
ber ex  officio,  and  shall  vote 
with  the  Clerical  Deputies  of 
the  state  to  which  he  belongs  : 
And  a  Bishop  shall  then 
.preside. 

Art.  4.  The  Bishop  or  Bish- 
ops in  every  state  shall  be 
chosen  agreeably  to  such 
rules,  as  shall  be  fixed  by  the 
Convention  of  that  state : 
And  every  Bishop  of  this 
Church  shall  confine  the  ex- 
ercise of  his  Episcopal  office 
to  his  proper  diocese  or 
district,  unless  requested  to 


October,  1789. 

cases,  the  House  of  Bishops 
shall  signify  to  the  Conven- 
tion their  approbation  or  dis- 
approbation (the  latter,  with 
their  reasons  in  writing)  with- 
in three  days  after  the  pro- 
posed act  shall  have  been 
reported  to  them  for  concur- 
rence ;  and,  in  failure  thereof, 
it  shall  have  the  operation  of 
a  law.  But  until  there  shall 
be  three  or  more  Bishops,  as 
aforesaid,  any  Bishop  attend- 
ing a  General  Convention 
shall  be  a  member,  ex  officio, 
and  shall  vote  with  the  cleri- 
cal deputies  of  the  state  to 
which  he  belongs ;  and  a 
Bishop  shall  then  preside. 


rules  as 


church 
episcopal 

district; 


284 


APPENDIX  D. 


August,  1789.  October,  1789. 

ordain,    or   confirm,    or    per- 
form  any   other  act    of   the 
Episcopal      office,      by      any     episcopal 
Church  destitute  of  a  Bishop,     church 

Art.  5.  A  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  any  of  the 
United  States,  not  now  rep- 
resented, may,  at  any  time 
hereafter,  be  admitted,  on 
acceding  to  this  constitu- 
tion. 

Art.  6.  In  every  state,  the 
mode    of    trying    Clergymen     clergymen 
shall  be  instituted  by  the  Con- 
vention of  the  Church  therein,     church 
At  every   trial  of  a   Bishop, 
there  shall  be  one  or  more  of 
the  Episcopal  order  present ;     episcopal 
and  none  but  a  Bishop  shall 
pronounce  sentence  of  deposi- 
tion or  degradation  from  the 
ministry  on  any  Clergyman, 
whether  Bishop,  or  Presbyter, 
or  Deacon. 

Art.  7.  No  person  shall  be 
admitted  to  holy  orders,  until 
he  shall  have  been  examined 
by  the  Bishop,  and  by  two  Bishop  and 
Presbyters,  and  shall  have  ex- 
hibited such  testimonials  and 
other  requisites,  as  the  canons, 
in  that  case  provided,  may 
direct.  Nor  shall  any  person 
be  ordained,  until  he  shall  ordained  until 
have  subscribed  the  following 
declaration  :  "  I  do  believe  the 


APPENDIX  D. 


Minister  of  this  Church, 


August,  1789,  October,  1789. 

holy  scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testament  to  be  the  word 
of  God,  and  to  contain  all 
things  necessary  to  salvation  : 
And  I  do  solemnly  engage  to 
conform  to  the  doctrines  and 
worshipof  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church  in  these  United 
States."  No  person  ordained 
by  a  foreign  Bishop  shall  be 
permitted  to  officiate  as  a  min- 
ister of  this  church,  until  he 
shall  have  complied  with  the 
canon  or  canons  in  that  case 
provided,  and  have  also  sub- 
scribed the  aforesaid  declara- 
tion. 

Art.  8.  A  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  Administration  of  the 
Sacraments,  and  other  Rites 
and  Ceremonies  of  the  Church, 
articles  of  religion,  and  a 
form  and  manner  of  making, 
ordaining  and  consecrating 
Bishops,  Priests  and  Deacons, 
when  established  by  this  or 
a  future  General  Convention, 
shall  be  used  in  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  these  those  states 
states,  which  shall  have 
adopted  this  Constitution.  constitution. 

Art.   9.    This    Constitution     constitution 
shall  be  unalterable,  unless  in 
General    Convention,    by   the 
Church   in  a  majority   of  the     church 
states,  which  may  have  adopt- 


A  book  of  common  prayer, 
administration  of  the  sacra- 
ments, and  other  rites  and 
ceremonies  of  the  church, 


286 


APPENDIX  D. 


August,  1789. 

ed  the  same ;  and  all  altera- 
tions shall  be  first  proposed 
in  one  General  Convention, 
and  made  known  to  the  sev- 
eral State  Conventions,  before 
they  shall  be  finally  agreed  to 
or  ratified  in  the  ensuing  Gen- 
eral Convention. 

In  General  Convention,  in 
Christ  Church,  Philadelphia, 
August  the  eighth,  one  thou- 
sand seven  hundred  and 
eighty  nine. 


William  White,  D.D.  Bishop 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  Common- 
wealth of  Pennsylvania,  and 
President  of  the  Conven- 
tion. 

New  York,  Abraham  Beach, 
D.D.  Assistant  Minister  of 
Trinity  Church,  in  the  city 
of  New  York,  etc. 

New  Jersey,  William  Frazer, 
etc. 

Pennsylvania,  Samuel  Ma- 
gaw,  D.D.,  etc. 

Delaware,  Joseph  Couden, 
A.M.,  etc. 

Maryland,  William  Smith, 
D.D.,  etc. 


October,  1789. 


Conventions  before 
agreed  to, 
or  ratified, 

Done  in  General  Conven- 
tion of  the  Bishops,  Clergy 
and  Laity  of  the  Church,  the 
second  day  of  October,  1789, 
and  ordered  to  be  transcribed 
into  the  Book  of  Records,  and 
subscribed,  which  was  done 
as  follows,  viz. 

In  the  House  of  Bishops. 

Samuel  Seabury,  D.D.  Bishop 
of  Connecticut. 

William  White,  D.D.  Bishop 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church,  Pennsylvania. 

In  the  House  of  Clerical  and 
Lay  Deputies. 

William  Smith,  D.D.  Presi- 
dent of  the  House  of  Cleri- 
cal and  Lay  Deputies,  and 
Clerical  Deputy  from  Mary- 
land. 

New  Hampshire  and 

Massachusetts,  Samuel  Par- 
ker, D.D.,  etc. 

Connecticut,  Bela  Hubbard, 
A.M.,  etc. 


APPENDIX  D. 


287 


August,  1789. 
Virginia,  Robert  Andrews. 
South      Carolina,     Robert 
Smith,  etc. 


October,  1789. 
New  York,  Benjamin  Moore, 

D.D.,  etc. 

New  Jersey,  Uzal  Ogden,  etc. 
Pennsylvania,    Samuel    Ma- 

gaw,  D.D.,  etc. 
Delaware,    Joseph    Cowden, 

A.M.,  etc. 
Maryland,  John  Bisset,  A.M., 

etc. 

Virginia,  John  Bracken,  etc. 
South  Carolina,  Robert  Smith, 

D.D.,  etc. 


288  APPENDIX  E. 


APPENDIX   E. 

THE  CONSTITUTION  AS   PRINTED  WITH  THE  DIGEST  OF 
CANONS   OF  GENERAL  CONVENTION,    1893. 

CONSTITUTION  ADOPTED  IN  GENERAL  CONVENTION  IN  PHILADELPHIA, 
OCTOBER,   1789. 

ARTICLE  i. 

There  shall  be  a  General  Convention  of  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America  on  the  first 
Wednesday  in  October,  in  every  third  year,  from  the  year  of 
our  Lord  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and  forty  one  ;  and  in 
such  place  as  shall  be  determined  by  the  Convention  ;  and  in 
case  there  shall  be  an  Epidemic  disease,  or  any  other  good 
cause  to  render  it  necessary  to  alter  the  place  fixed  on  for  any 
such  meeting  of  the  Convention,  the  Presiding  Bishop  shall 
have  it  in  his  power  to  appoint  another  convenient  place  (as 
near  as  may  be  to  the  place  so  fixed  on)  for  the  holding  of 
such  Convention  :  and  special  meetings  may  be  called  at 
other  times,  in  the  manner  hereafter  to  be  provided  for  ;  and 
this  Church,  in  a  majority  of  the  Dioceses  which  shall  have 
adopted  this  Constitution,  shall  be  represented  before  they  shall 
proceed  to  business  ;  except  that  the  representation  from  two 
Dioceses  shall  be  sufficient  to  adjourn  ;  and  in  all  business  of 
the  Convention  freedom  of  debate  shall  be  allowed. 

ARTICLE  2. 

The  Church  in  each  Diocese  shall  be  entitled  to  a  represen- 
tation of  both  the  Clergy  and  the  Laity.  Such  representation 
shall  consist  of  not  more  than  four  Clergymen  and  four  Lay- 
men, communicants  in  this  Church,  residents  in  the  Diocese, 
and  chosen  in  the  manner  prescribed  by  the  Convention 
thereof:  and  in  all  questions  when  required  by  the  Clerical 
or  Lay  representation  from  any  Diocese,  each  Order  shall 


APPENDIX  E.  289 

have  one  vote  :  and  the  majority  of  suffrages  by  Dioceses  shall 
be  conclusive  in  each  Order,  provided  such  majority  compre- 
hend a  majority  of  the  Dioceses  represented  in  that  Order. 
The  concurrence  of  both  Orders  shall  be  necessary  to  consti- 
tute a  vote  of  the  House  of  Deputies.  If  the  Convention  of 
any  Diocese  should  neglect  or  decline  to  appoint  Clerical 
Deputies,  or  if  they  should  neglect  or  decline  to  appoint  Lay 
Deputies,  or  if  any  of  those  of  either  Order  appointed  should 
neglect  to  attend,  or  be  prevented  by  sickness  or  any  other 
accident,  such  Diocese  shall  nevertheless  be  considered  as 
duly  represented  by  such  Deputy  or  Deputies  as  may  attend, 
whether  Lay  or  Clerical.  And  if  through  the  neglect  of  the 
Convention  of  any  of  the  Churches  which  shall  have  adopted 
or  may  hereafter  adopt  this  Constitution,  no  Deputies,  either 
Lay  or  Clerical,  should  attend  at  any  General  Convention,  the 
Church  in  such  Diocese  shall  nevertheless  be  bound  by  the 
acts  of  such  Convention. 

ARTICLE  3. 

The  Bishops  of  this  Church,  when  there  shall  be  three  or 
more,  shall,  whenever  General  Conventions  are  held,  form  a 
separate  House,  with  a  right  to  originate  and  propose  acts 
for  the  concurrence  of  the  House  of  Deputies  composed  of 
Clergy  and  Laity  ;  and  when  any  proposed  act  shall  have 
passed  the  House  of  Deputies,  the  same  shall  be  transmitted 
to  the  House  of  Bishops,  who  shall  have  a  negative  there- 
upon ;  and  all  acts  of  the  Convention  shall  be  authenticated 
by  both  Houses.  And  in  all  cases  the  House  of  Bishops  shall 
signify  to  the  House  of  Deputies  their  approbation  or  disap- 
probation (the  latter  with  their  reasons  in  writing)  within 
three  days  after  the  proposed  act  shall  have  been  reported  to 
them  for  concurrence  ;  and  in  failure  thereof,  it  shall  have 
the  operation  of  a  law.  But  until  there  shall  be  three  or 
more  Bishops,  as  aforesaid,  any  Bishop  attending  a  General 
Convention  shall  be  a  member  ex  officio,  and  shall  vote  with 
the  Clerical  Deputies  of  the  Diocese  to  which  he  belongs  ; 
and  a  Bishop  shall  then  preside. 
19 


2  po  APPENDIX  E. 

ARTICLE  4. 

The  Bishop  or  Bishops  in  every  Diocese  shall  be  chosen 
agreeably  to  such  rules  as  shall  be  fixed  by  the  Convention  of 
that  Diocese  ;  and  every  Bishop  of  this  Church  shall  confine 
the  exercise  of  his  Episcopal  Office  to  his  proper  Diocese, 
unless  requested  to  ordain,  or  confirm,  or  perform  any  other 
act  of  the  Episcopal  Office  in  another  Diocese  by  the  Ecclesi- 
astical authority  thereof. 

ARTICLE  5. 

A  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  any  of  the  United  States, 
or  any  Territory  thereof,  not  now  represented,  may,  at  any 
time  hereafter,  be  admitted  on  acceding  to  this  Constitution  ; 
and  a  new  Diocese,  to  be  formed  from  one  or  more  existing 
Dioceses,  may  be  admitted  under  the  following  restrictions, 
viz. ; — 

No  new  Diocese  shall  be  formed  or  erected  within  the  limits 
of  any  other  Diocese,  nor  shall  any  Diocese  be  formed  by 
the  junction  of  two  or  more  Dioceses,  or  parts  of  Dioceses, 
unless  with  the  consent  of  the  Bishop  and  Convention  of  each 
of  the  Dioceses  concerned,  as  well  as  of  the  General  Conven- 
tion, and  such  consent  shall  not  be  given  by  the  General  Con- 
vention until  it  has  satisfactory  assurance  of  a  suitable  pro- 
vision for  the  support  of  the  Episcopate  in  the  contemplated 
new  Diocese. 

No  such  new  Diocese  shall  be  formed  which  shall  contain 
less  than  six  Parishes,  or  less  than  six  Presbyters  who  have 
been  for  at  least  one  year  canonically  resident  within  the 
bounds  of  such  new  Diocese,  regularly  settled  in  a  Parish  or 
Congregation,  and  qualified  to  vote  for  a  Bishop.  Nor  shall 
such  new  Diocese  be  formed  if  thereby  any  existing  Diocese 
shall  be  so  reduced  as  to  contain  less  than  twelve  Parishes,  or 
less  than  twelve  Presbyters  who  have  been  residing  therein 
and  settled  and  qualified  as  above  mentioned  ;  Provided  that 
no  city  shall  form  more  than  one  Diocese. 

In  case  one  Diocese  shall  be  divided  into  two  or  more  Dio- 


APPENDIX  E.  291 

ceses,  the  Diocesan  of  the  Diocese  divided  may  elect  the  one 
to  which  he  will  be  attached,  and  shall  thereupon  become  the 
Diocesan  thereof ;  and  the  Assistant  Bishop,  if  there  be  one, 
may  elect  the  one  to  which  he  will  be  attached  ;  and  if  it  be 
not  the  one  elected  by  the  Bishop,  he  shall  be  the  Diocesan 
thereof. 

Whenever  the  division  of  a  Diocese  into  two  or  more  Dio- 
ceses shall  be  ratified  by  the  General  Convention,  each  of  the 
Dioceses  shall  be  subject  to  the  Constitution  and  Canons  of 
the  Diocese  so  divided,  except  as  local  circumstances  may 
prevent,  until  the  same  may  be  altered  in  either  Diocese  by 
the  Convention  thereof.  And  whenever  a  Diocese  shall  be 
formed  out  of  two  or  more  existing  Dioceses,  the  new  Diocese 
shall  be  subject  to  the  Constitution  and  Canons  of  that  one  of 
the  said  existing  Dioceses  to  which  the  greater  number  of 
Clergymen  shall  have  belonged  prior  to  the  erection  of  such 
new  Diocese,  until  the  same  may  be  altered  by  the  Convention 
of  the  new  Diocese. 

ARTICLE  6. 

The  mode  of  trying  Bishops  shall  be  provided  by  the  Gen- 
eral Convention.  The  Court  appointed  for  that  purpose  shall 
be  composed  of  Bishops  only.  In  every  Diocese,  the  mode  of 
trying  Presbyters  and  Deacons  may  be  instituted  by  the  Con- 
vention of  the  Diocese.  None  but  a  Bishop  shall  pronounce 
sentence  of  admonition,  suspension,  or  degradation  from  the 
Ministry,  on  any  Clergyman,  whether  Bishop,  Presbyter  or 
Deacon. 

ARTICLE  7. 

"No  person  shall  be  admitted  to  Holy  Orders  until  he  shall 
have  been  examined  by  the  Bishop,  and  by  two  Presbyters, 
and  shall  have  exhibited  such  testimonials  and  other  requisites 
as  the  Canons,  in  that  case  provided,  may  direct.  Nor  shall 
any  person  be  ordained  until  he  shall  have  subscribed  the 
following  declaration  : 

I  do  believe  the  Holy   Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  to  be  the  Word  of  God,  and  to  contain  all  things 


292  APPENDIX  E. 

necessary  to  salvation  ;  and  I  do  solemnly  engage  to  conform 

to  the  Doctrines  and  Worship  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 

Church  in  the  United  States. 

No  person  ordained  by  a  foreign  Bishop  shall  be  permitted 
to  officiate  as  a  Minister  of  this  Church,  until  he  shall  have 
complied  with  the  Canon  or  Canons  in  that  case  provided, 
and  have  also  subscribed  the  aforesaid  Declaration. 

ARTICLE  8. 

A  Book  of  Common  Prayer,  Administration  of  the  Sacra- 
ments, and  other  Rites  and  Ceremonies  of  the  Church,  Arti- 
cles of  Religion,  and  a  Form  and  Manner  of  making,  ordain- 
ing and  consecrating  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Deacons,  when 
established  by  this  or  a  future  General  Convention,  shall  be 
used  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  those  Dioceses 
which  shall  have  adopted  this  Constitution. 

No  alteration  or  addition  shall  be  made  in  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer  or  other  offices  of  the  Church,  or  the  Articles 
of  Religion,  unless  the  same  shall  be  proposed  in  one  General 
Convention,  and  by  a  resolve  thereof  made  known  to  the  Con- 
vention of  every  Diocese,  and  adopted  at  the  subsequent  Gen- 
eral Convention. 

Provided,  however,  That  the  General  Convention  shall  have 
power,  from  time  to  time,  to  amend  the  Lectionary ;  but  no 
act  for  this  purpose  shall  be  valid  which  is  not  voted  for  by 
a  majority  of  the  whole  number  of  Bishops  entitled  to  seats  in 
the  House  of  Bishops,  and  by  a  majority  of  all  the  Dioceses 
entitled  to  representation  in  the  House  of  Deputres. 

ARTICLE  9. 

This  Constitution  shall  be  unalterable,  unless  in  General 
Convention,  by  the  Church  in  a  majority  of  the  Dioceses  which 
may  have  adopted  the  same  ;  and  all  alterations  shall  be  first 
proposed  in  one  General  Convention,  and  made  known  to  the 
several  Diocesan  Conventions,  before  they  shall  be  finally 
agreed  to,  or  ratified,  in  the  ensuing  General  Convention. 


APPENDIX  E.  293 

ARTICLE  10. 

Bishops  for  foreign  countries,  on  due  application  therefrom, 
may  be  consecrated,  with  the  approbation  of  the  Bishops  of 
this  Church,  or  a  majority  of  them,  signified  to  the  Presiding 
Bishop  ;  he  thereupon  taking  order  for  the  same,  and  they 
being  satisfied  that  the  person  designated  for  the  office  has 
been  duly  chosen  and  properly  qualified  ;  the  Order  of  Conse- 
cration to  be  conformed,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  in  the  judgment 
of  the  Bishops,  to  the  one  used  in  this  Church.  Such  Bishops 
so  consecrated,  shall  not  be  eligible  to  the  Office  of  Diocesan 
or  Assistant  Bishop,  in  any  Diocese  in  the  United  States,  nor 
be  entitled  to  a  seat  in  the  House  of  Bishops,  nor  exercise  any 
Episcopal  authority  in  said  States. 

Done  in  the  General  Convention  of  the  Bishops,  Clergy 
and  Laity  of  the  Church,  the  zd  day  of  October,  ij8g.* 


*  This  attestation  clause  is  here  placed  after  the  Constitution  as 
now  existing,  it  is  presumed  for  the  purpose  of  pointing  out  that  it  is 
the  same  Constitution,  although  since  frequently  amended,  which 
was  originally  adopted  in  the  second  session  of  1789;  not,  of  course, 
as  a  statement  that  the  Constitution  as  it  now  stands  was  adopted  at 
that  time  ;  although  from  the  statement  by  itself,  one  who  was  not 
aware  of  its  previous  history  might  suppose  this  to  be  the  case. 


WORKS    CITED. 


Andrewes,  Bishop.  Summary 
View  of  Government  of  Old 
and  New  Testament. 

American  Church  Review,  New 
York. 

Bailey,  Rev.  T.  J.  Mission  and 
Jurisdiction. 

Barbour's  Reports,  New  York. 
Walker  v.  Wainwright. 

Beveridge,  Bishop.  Codex  Cano- 
num,  etc. 

Bilson,  Bishop.  Perpetual  Gov- 
ernment of  the  Church. 

Bingham,  Rev.  Joseph.  Chris- 
tian Antiquities. 

Bioren's  Journals  of  General  Con- 
vention. 

Blackstone,  Sir  William.  Com- 
mentaries. 

Blunt's  Theological  and  Histor- 
ical Dictionary. 

Bryce,  Professor.  The  Holy  Ro- 
man Empire. 

Constitutions,  Civil  and  Ecclesi- 
astical. 

Church  Eclectic,  New  York.  Oc- 
tober, 1889. 

Cumberland,  Bishop.  Laws  of 
Nature. 

Digest,  Canons  General  Conven- 
tion. 


Dwight,  Professor.  Introduction 
to  Maine's  Ancient  Law. 

Dix,  Rev.  Dr.  Morgan.  The  Sac- 
ramental System  of  the  Church. 

Egar,  Rev.  Dr.  J.  H.  Ecclesias- 
tical and  Political  Christendom. 

Field,  Rev.  Dr.     Of  the  Church. 

Fulton,  Rev.  Dr.  John.  Index 
Canonum. 

Gibson,  Bishop.     Codex. 

Hawks,  Rev.  Dr.  F.  L.  Con- 
stitution and  Canons. 

Hoffman,  Hon.  Murray.  Law 
of  the  Church. 

Hoist,  Dr.  H.  von.  Constitu- 
tional Law,  United  States  of 
America. 

Hooker,  Rev.  Richard.  Ecclesi- 
astical Polity. 

Hook's  Church  Dictionary. 

Illinois  Reports.  Chase  v.  Che- 
ney. 

Jackson,  Dean.     Works. 

Jarvis,  Rev.  Dr.  S.  F.  Church  of 
the  Redeemed. 

Kennett's  Ecclesiastical  Synods. 

Kent, Chancellor.   Commentaries. 

Lathbury's  History  of  Convoca- 
tion. 

Lewis's  Antiquities  of  the  He- 
brew Republic. 


296 


WORKS  CITED. 


Maine,  Sir  Henry  Sumner.  An- 
cient Law. 

Marshall,  Dr.  Nathaniel.  Eccle- 
siastical and  Civil  Powers. 

Mason,  Francis.  Consecration  of 
English  Bishops. 

Outram,  Rev.  William.  On  Sac- 
rifices. 

Palmer,  Rev.  William.  Of  the 
Church  of  Christ. 

Palmer,  Rev.  William.  Antiqui- 
ties of  English  Ritual. 

Percival's  Roman  Schism,  Illus- 
trated. 

Potter,  Archbishop.  Discourse 
on  Church  Government. 

Puffendorf,  Baron.  Law  of  Na- 
ture and  of  Nations. 

Rattray,  Bishop.  Election  of 
Bishops. 

Shea,  Hon.  George.  Life  and 
Epoch  of  Alexander  Hamil- 
ton. 


Seabury,  Bishop.     Discourses. 

Seabury,  Rev.  Dr.  Samuel.  Dis- 
courses on  Nature  and  Work  of 
the  Holy  Spirit. 

Seabury,  Rev.  Dr.  Samuel.  The 
Continuity  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  the  Sixteenth  Cen- 
tury. 

Seabury, W.  J.  Sermons,  Election 
of  Bishop  Seabury,  and  Civil 
Analogy. 

Seabury's  Haddan,  on  Apostolic 
Succession. 

The  Church  Cyclopaedia. 

Vinton,  Rev.  Dr.  Francis.  Man- 
ual Commentary  on  Canon 
Law. 

Warren's  Synodalia. 

Wilson.  Rev.  Dr.  The  Church 
Identified. 

Wilson,  Rev.  Dr.  The  Provin- 
cial System. 

White,  Bishop.     Memoirs. 


TEXTS   CITED. 


Gen.  iii.  15. 

St.  Mark  iii.  13-19. 

Rom.  viii.  II. 

iii.    16. 

vii.  9-13. 

xiii.  1-4 

iv.  26,  margin. 

xiv.  17. 

xiii.  1-6. 

V. 

St.  Luke  i.  23. 

I.  Cor.  i.  12-17 

vi.  1-7. 

i   35- 

v-  3-5- 

vi.  8. 

iv.    14,    15, 

v.  4. 

vi.  I,  2. 

17,  18. 

xi. 

vii.,  viii. 

vi.  12-16. 

xi.  26. 

viii.  20-23. 

xii.  13,  14. 

xii.  4-12. 

xii.  1-3. 

xxii.  14. 

xii.  20,  21. 

xiv.  18-21. 

xxii.  19,  20. 

xii.  28. 

xvii.  1-14. 

xxii.  29,  30. 

xiv. 

xx.  7. 

St.  John  iii.  22. 

xiv.  26-33. 

xxv.  29-34. 

iv.  1-4. 

II.  Cor.  ii.  10. 

Ex.  xviii.  i,  12. 

xiv.  16,   17, 

viii.  23. 

XX     12. 

26. 

x.  11-16. 

Numb.  xxx.  3-9. 

xv.  1  6. 

xi.  13. 

Job  i.  4,  5. 

xvi.  13. 

xii.  16. 

xlii.  7-9. 

x.  17,  18. 

Gal.  i.  i. 

Dan.  ii.  21  . 

xx.  21-23. 

ii.  6-10. 

ii.  44. 

3d  Ep.  9,10. 

ii.  7. 

v.  18-22. 

Acts  i.  i. 

ii.  9. 

St.  Matt.  i.  20. 

i-  4,  5- 

Eph.  ii.  20. 

iii.  16,  17. 

i.  8. 

iv.  ii. 

iv.  i. 

i.  15-26. 

iv.  4-13. 

X. 

ii.  1-4. 

V.   I,  2. 

x.  5,  7- 

iv.  8. 

v.  25. 

x.  40. 

v.  32. 

v.  33- 

xv.  24. 

vi.  1-6. 

vi.  2. 

xvi.  1  8. 

viii.  14-17. 

vi.  4. 

xvi.  19. 

xii.  17. 

vi.  5-9. 

xvii.  27. 

xiii.  1-3. 

Phil.  ii.  25. 

xviii.  18. 

xiv.  23. 

I.  Thess.  iv.  15. 

xix.  4-6. 

XV. 

II.  Thess.  iii.  4,   10, 

xix.  28. 

xv.  28,  29. 

12. 

xxii.  21.    • 

xix.  1-5. 

I.  Tim.  ii.  r,  2. 

xxvi.  20. 

xix.  1-6. 

ii.  1-3. 

xxviii.  18. 

xxi.  8. 

vi.  4. 

xxviii.19,20 

xxi.  18. 

II.  Tim.  vi.  5-9. 

298 


TEXTS   CITED. 


Titus  iv.  4^13. 

Heb.  vii.  24-28. 

I.  St.  Pet.  v.  i,  2. 

Heb.  ii.  17. 

ix.  14. 

v.  1-3. 

v.  9. 

xii.  16,  17. 

II.  St.  Pet.  i.  20. 

V.   12. 

xii.  22,  23. 

ii.  5- 

vi.  20. 

xvi.  16,17,22,23. 

III.  John,  g,  10. 

vii. 

I.  St.  Pet.  ii.  13-17. 

Rev.  i.  ii.  iii. 

INDEX. 


Aaron,  86. 

Aaron  ical,  70. 

Abel,  83. 

Abraham,  42,  84. 

Abimelech,  85. 

Adam,  42,  61. 

Africa,  1 19. 

Alexandria,  I2O. 

Allegiance  to  civil  rulers,  36,  204. 

American  civil  analogies,  186-255. 

American  system,  182,  212. 

American  system,  special  mission 

of,  266. 
Amram,  86. 
Analysis       of      episcopate      and 

Church,  163,  166. 
Andrewes,  87,  107. 
Annunciation,  62,  134. 
Antioch,  118,  120. 
Appropriation  of  name  Church,  53 
Apostolic  canons,  134,  159,  228. 
Article  XXVIII.,  94. 
Ascension,  72,   112. 
Assistant    Bishops,    seats    of,  in 

House,  249,  250. 


B 

Bacon,  90. 

Bailey,  132. 

Baltimore,   129. 

Baptism,  43,  65. 

Barnabas,  108,  117. 

Beveridge,  150,  158,  162,  229. 

Bilson,  44. 

Bingham,  118,  156,  157,  176,  178, 

199.  208. 
Blackstone,   25,   26,  38,  106,  107. 


Blessed  Virgin,  62,  63,  129. 
Blunt,  123. 
Bramhall,  125. 
Bryce,  34. 
Bulls,  129. 


Caesar,  210. 

Cain,  42,  83,  85. 

Canon,  general  sense  and  defini- 
tion of,  39.  40. 

Carroll,  127. 

Carthage,  1 19. 

Catholic  Church,  distinguished, 
46. 

Centre  of  unity,  49. 

Ceremonies,  39,  47. 

Chapter,  134,  136. 

Charge  of  people,  132. 

Chase,  38. 

Chase  v.  Cheney,  142. 

Chorepiscopus,  250. 

Christian  dispensation,  42,  54. 

Church,  characteristic  of,  in  sev- 
eral di>pensations,  42. 

Church,  various  senses  of  word, 
216,  217. 

Church,  in  most  comprehensive 
sense,  41. 

Church  and  State,  30,  32,  34. 

Church  in  State,  Diocese,  205. 

Church  in  State,  two-fold  right  of, 
205. 

Church,  a  society,  not  a  force, 
nor  Christ,  95. 

Church,  visible  and  invisible,  54, 
59,  88,  96. 

Church  representative,  in  Eng- 
land, 181. 


300 


INDEX. 


Church    representative,  sketch  of 
history  of,   171-179. 

Church  representative,  American, 
256. 

Cilicia,  117. 

Civil  analogy,  167-255. 

Civil  environment,  189. 

Claggett,  127,  253. 

Coghlan,  127. 

Cohath,  86. 

Colonial  Church,    tendencies  of, 
189. 

Component  parts  of  ecclesiastical 
union,  256,  258-261. 

Common  bond,  48. 

Community  resulting    from    fed- 
eral union,  243. 

Community  resulting  from  eccle- 
siastical union,  263-265. 

Communities,  distinct,  32. 

Condition  of  moral  being,  23,  25. 

Conge  d'eslire,  134. 

Congregational  theory,  92. 

Concurrent  majority,  dangers  ob- 
viated by,  235-237. 

Concurrent     majority,    grasp     of 
principle  of,  235. 

Connecticut  and  Pennsylvania,2o6. 

Connecticut  case,   196,    197,  203, 
206,  207. 

Connecticut,  position  of,  207. 

Consent  of  governed,  146,  147. 

Constantine,  175,  178. 

Constantinople,  178. 

Constitution  or  constitutions,  215. 

Constitution,  mode  of  alteration, 
220. 

Constitution,  in  what  sense  crea- 
tive? 215-217. 

Constitution,  powers  conferred  in, 
220-225. 

Constitutional  divisions,  48,   167, 
170. 

Conventional  and  Episcopal  sys- 
tems, 206. 

Conventional  compared  with  con- 
vocational  system,  185,  189. 

Conventionality,  visible  form,  55. 

Convocation,  sketch  of,    182-185. 


Corpus  Christi  mysticum,  76,  77. 
Corpus  Christi  verum,  76,  77. 
Councils,  authority  of,  161,  162. 
Covenant,  41,  55. 
Creation,  24. 
Creeds,  48. 
Crete,  133. 
Cumberland,  26. 


D 

Dakota,  241. 
Daniel,  43. 

Degrees  of  advancement,  64-73. 
Departments  of  government,  27. 
Dependencies  in  ecclesiastical  sys- 
tem, 244,  245. 

Dependence  on  episcopate,  204. 
Development,    parallel    of,    238- 

253- 
Diagram  of   Levitical  succession, 

86. 

Diocesan  state  idea,  203. 
Diocesan  synods,  155,  172,  173. 
Diocesan  jurisdiction.  127. 
Diocesan  unit,  195. 
Dioceses,   being  and  constitution 

of,  as  associated,  263,  264. 
Dioceses,     component     parts    of 

ecclesiastical  union,  256-261. 
Dispensation,  33,  54. 
Distinctions     between      Bishops, 

172,  173,  176. 

Distribution  of  powers,  73,  74. 
Distribution  of  Church  into  civil 

divisions,  167. 
Dix,  94. 

Duality  of  government,  192. 
Dunkeld,  134. 
Duty  of  consulting  inferior  orders 

and  laity,  115. 
Dwight,  80. 


Ecclesia,  43. 

Ecclesiastical  union,  201,  202,  203, 
208,  217,  218,  220,  2-)4,  245, 
246,  247,  251,  252,  253,  258, 
263. 


INDEX. 


301 


Edinburgh,  134. 

Edward  I.,  183. 

Egar,  177. 

Elizabeth,  125. 

Empire,  Holy  Roman,  34. 

Enos,  42. 

Entirety  of  power  in    episcopate, 

74- 

Entities,  moral,  24. 

Epaphroditus,  108. 

Ephesus,  120. 

Episcopal  and  conventional  sys- 
tems, 206. 

Episcopal  constitution  of  Ameri- 
can Church,  1 38. 

Episcopal  executive,  226,  227. 

Episcopal  negative,  226,  227. 

Episcopal  quorum,  253,  254. 

Episcopal  representation,  247- 
254,  261.  262. 

Episcopal  theory,  92. 

Episcopate,  49,  93,  127.  130,  143, 
144,  145,  148,  151,  152,  154, 
158,  162,  163,  164. 

Erastian.  34. 

Esau,  85. 

Evans,  141. 

Extension  of  incarnation,  95,  96. 


Faith,     sacraments,     and    minis- 
try, 48. 
Fall,  41. 
Family,  27,  30. 
Father,  27. 

Federal  idea,  149-166. 
Federation,  parallel  of,  199-212. 
Field,  41,  44,  45,  46,  47,  79. 
Franklin,  90. 
Fulton,  134,  159,  160,  177. 


Gershom,  86. 
Gibson,  184. 
Grotius,  26 


H 

Haddan,  125. 

Hamilton,   life   and   epoch,    192, 

209,  210. 

Harris's  Justinian,  26. 
Harrison,  141. 
Hawks,  253,  254. 
Hawks  and  Perry,  197. 
Heavenly  call,  45. 
Henry  VIII.,  182,  184,  250. 
Hierarchy  .American  Roman,  129. 
Hindoo  customary  law,  87. 
Hoffman,  225,  254. 
Hook,  136,  137. 
Hooker,  132,  133,  156. 
Hopkins,  241 
House  of  revision,  226. 
Husband,  27,  192. 


Ignatius,  154,  156. 
Immaculate  Conception,  131. 
Imperial  period,  177. 
Imperializing  influences,  212. 
Imposition,  24. 
Indefectibility,  43. 
Indelibility.  74. 
Independent  theory,  92. 
Inherent  sovereignty,  notion   of, 

208,  215. 

Instruction,  right  of,  234,  235. 
Intrusion,  126,  128. 
Iowa,  Bishop  of,  188. 
Izhar,  86. 


Jackson,  29,  41,  69,  81,  82,  84, 
116,  117,  171,  217. 

Jarvis,  23,  41,  42,  44. 

James,  119. 

Jerusalem,  117,  119. 

Jethro,  85. 

Jewish  institutions,  typical  char- 
acter of,  33. 

Job,  83,  85. 

John  Baptist,  65. 


302 


INDEX. 


John,  68,  98,  114,  117. 

Joseph,  62. 

Jude,  109. 

Judaic  parallel,  33. 

Judas,  98,  117. 

Judaism,  46. 

Judiciary,  parallel  of,  237,  238. 

Jurisdiction,  75,  123-142. 

Jurisdiction,  policy  of  extension 
of,  241-247. 

Jurisdiction,  habitual  and  actual, 
123. 

Jurisdiction,  original  extent  in 
two  systems,  238-241. 

Jurisdiction,  coercive  and  spirit- 
ual, 137. 

Jurisdiction  of  English  episco- 
pate, 205. 

Jurisdiction,  ecclesiastical,  in  civil 
courts,  137-142. 

Jurisdiction,  concurrent  and  com- 
plementary, 32,  36. 

Justinian,  26. 

K 

Kennett,  155,  172,  173,  178. 
Kent,  233,  234. 


Lathbury,  155. 

Law,  moral  and  positive,  36. 

Law  of   nature  and  nations,   24, 

26. 
Legislative  regulation  of  judicial 

function,  237,  238. 
Levi,  86. 
Lewis,  87. 

Limitations,  113-122. 
Limits,  territorial   and  personal, 

117. 

Localization  of  mission,  133. 
London,    Bishop    of,     188,  '200, 

201. 

Love  of  country,  211. 
Luke,  68,  97,  98,  113. 
Lull  worth  Castle,  129. 
Luther,  90. 


M 

Madison,  228,  257. 

Maine,  80,  83. 

Majority,  numerical  and  concur- 
rent, 228-235. 

Marriage,  23. 

Mark,  97,  98. 

Marks  and  notes,  46. 

Marshall,  76. 

Maryland,  127. 

Mason,  107,  117,  132,  133. 

Matthew,  44.  97,98,  114. 

Mediatorial  kingdom,  61,  86. 

Melchizedek,  73,  84. 

Merari,  86. 

Metropolitans,  173,176. 

Midian,  85. 

Meletius,  118. 

Ministry  mediates  between  Christ 
and  Church,  103. 

Ministry,  powers  of,  60,  74. 

Miracles,  105,  107. 

Missionary  jurisdictions  not  com- 
ponent parts  of  ecclesiastical 
union,  262. 

Missionary  system,  development 
of,  246. 

Missionary  society,  canonically 
chartered,  246. 

Missionary  Bishops,  seats  of,  in 
house,  250-253,  262. 

Mission  and  jurisdiction,  124,  131. 

Mission,  Anglican  and  Roman, 
130,  131. 

Moses,  42. 

Monarchical  period,  198. 

Mystical  theory,  94. 

Modern  notion  (St.  John,  xx.  21— 
23\  98-100. 

Moral  entities,  24. 

Moore,  249. 

Mosaic,   41,  54. 

N 

Name  Church,  52-59. 

Names,  not  necessarily  notes,  58. 

Natural  being,  24. 


INDEX. 


303 


New  York,  division  of  diocese  of, 

242. 

Neighborhood,  201,  204. 
Nice,  135. 
Noah,  42,  83,  84. 
Nursery,  262. 


Obligation,  25. 

Official  authority,  ordinary,  105. 
Official  life  of  Christ,  61. 
Order  and  mission,  123. 
Orders,  Roman,  75. 
Organization,  parallel  of,  213-223. 
Otho  and  Othobon,  215,  218. 
Outram,  70,  83. 


Paganism,  46. 

Palmer,  50,  123,  126. 

Papacy,  32,  34,  179,  181. 

Papal  infallibility,  131. 

Papal  infallibility,  compared  with 

congregational,  g6. 
Parallel  of  diaconate,  67. 
Parallel  of  episcopate,  67. 
Parallel  of  priesthood,  68-72. 
Parliamentarianism  ecclesiastical, 

262. 
Parties,  titles  of  American,  212, 

213. 

Passive  obedience,  38. 
Patriarchal,  42,  54,  85,  175. 
Paul,  108,  log,  no,  117,  119. 
Paulinus,  118. 
Pennsylvania    and     Connecticut, 

206. 

Pentecost,  43,  62,  102. 
Pentecostal     gifts     according    to 

vocation,  102. 
Percival,  171. 

Periods  of  official  life,  64-69. 
Permanent  chief  office,  88. 
Perry,  188. 

Peter,  84,  109,  115,  117,  119. 
Pius  IV.,  131. 
Pius  VI.,  129. 


Philip,  109. 

Philippians.  108. 

Plan  for  obtaining  consecration. 
195.  198. 

Plato,  89. 

Pope's  heifer,  79. 

Positive  law,  divine,  ecclesiasti- 
cal, civil,  36,  37. 

Potter,  103,  104,  106,  ill,  115, 
120,  134,  143,  151. 

Power  of  order,  74. 

Powers  ceded,  143,  148. 

Powers  of  the  Church,  143. 

Powers  ordinary  and  extraordi- 
nary, 105,  iio. 

Powers  of  ministry,  parallels 
with  Christ  and  Apostles,  60,  74. 

Prelates,  greater  and  lesser,  182. 

Presiding  Bishop,  227.  228. 

President,  election  of,  232,  233. 

Presbyterian  theory,  92. 

Provost,  207,  228,  249. 

Priesthood  of  Levi,  86. 

Priesthood,  our  Lord's  consecra- 
tion to,  69,  72. 

Primitive  period,   172. 

Protestant  societies,  53. 

Prophets,  81. 

Provincial  system,  152,  157,  177. 

Puffendorf,  24. 

Puritans,  33,  189. 


R 


Rama,  Bishop  of,  129. 
Rattray,  134. 
Redeemer,  41,  43. 
Redemption,  41,  43. 
Regal  power,  root  of,  81. 
Republic  of  United  States,  198, 

199.  231,  232. 
Republican  period,  180. 
Representation    and    legislation, 

parallels  of,  235.  237. 
Representation,  moral  and   legal 

considerations  respecting,  10.0, 

193. 
Rubrics,  39. 


INDEX. 


Sacramental  system,  94. 

Salamis,  117. 

Samaritans,  64. 

Sanction,  25,  27,  37. 

Saul,  117. 

Seabury,  69,  90,  125,  134,  145, 
189,  197,  200,  202,  206,  207, 
228.  • 

Selection,  41. 

Seleucia,  117. 

Senators,  233,  234. 

Seth,  42. 

School,  30. 

School  of  philosophy,  89. 

Schools  of  thought.  192. 

Scholastic  distinctions,  74,  79. 

Scotland    134. 

Scottish  Church,  197. 

Shea,  192,  209. 

Sh'em,  84. 

Society,  23. 

Socrates,  89. 

Social  union,  90. 

Society  for  Propagating  the  Gos- 
pel, 189. 

Sphere,  30. 

Spiritual  unity,  90. 

Standing  committee,  136. 

States,  British  recognition  of,  209. 

States,  confederacy  of,  209. 

States  in  union,  209,  210. 

States  in  empire,  192. 

States — relation  to  general  gov- 
ernment, 210. 

Subordination  of  individual 
Bishop  to  episcopate  due  to 
what  ?  152. 

Suffragan,  249,  250. 

Supernatural  presidency,  81,  83. 

Syria,  117. 


Ten  Canons,   case  of   the,   222- 

225. 
Territory,  Church  in,  259,  260. 


Theocracy,  32,  34. 

Theories  of  Church  and  ministry, 

88-96. 

Theodoret,  118. 
Theodosius,  175. 
Thomas,  101. 
Timothy,  105,  106. 
Titus,  105,  108,  133. 
Trent,  76. 
Triple  cord,  227. 
Triple  consent,  225,  226. 
Triple  concurrence,  235. 


U 

Union  of  visible  Churches,  171. 
Unity  of  authority  in  ecclesiasti- 
cal system,  256-267. 
Unity  of  the  Church,  48,  49,  50. 
Unity  and  union,  90.  91. 
Unit  in  analysis,  163-166. 
Universal  sovereigns,  34. 
Uzziel,  86. 


Vespasian,  175. 

Vinton.  222,  224,  225,  253,  254. 
Vincentius  Lirinensis,  162. 
Von  Hoist,  142,  239,  240. 


W 

Wake,  185. 

Walker  v.  Wainwright,  142. 

Walmsley,  129,  130. 

Warren,  185. 

Washington,  90. 

Weld,  129. 

White,  193,    199,   202,    207,  214, 

228,  253. 

Wilson,  59,  152,  177. 
Woodbury,  197. 


